oral versus transdermal

[thebigt]

there is no doubt in my mind that that for many substances oral can't hold a candle to transdermal....lets look at formestane, many tried to make a oral to compete with transdermal formestane, eric potratz of primordial performance even tried a liquid version, but it wasn't even half as effective as transdermal.

epiandrosterone androsterone bAET and transresveratrol are a few that fit this catagory--this is my opinion at least....lets have a civil conversation/debate shall we?

 

[ANABOLICWRWLF]

In for info!

 

[MFTrainz]

100% in on this. I tend to side with TD - bypasses so much that I can’t imagine too many orals with better pharmacokinetic responses.

finally able to use that word in a sentence

 

[Beau]

Subbed

 

[Renew1]

there is no doubt in my mind that that for many substances oral can't hold a candle to transdermal....lets look at formestane, many tried to make a oral to compete with transdermal formestane, eric potratz of primordial performance even tried a liquid version, but it wasn't even half as effective as transdermal.

epiandrosterone androsterone bAET and transresveratrol are a few that fit this catagory--this is my opinion at least....lets have a civil conversation/debate shall we?

I 100% agree with what you wrote.

 

[BigGame84]

Agree but a lot depends on the molecular weight of the substance to pull it off as a transdermal.

Also, lets state the obvious that oral is much more convenient than transdermal.

 

[sns8778]

I think that both are great options and it really just depends on the individual ingredient.

B-Androstenetriol - Transdermal.
Formestane - Transdermal.

Trans Resveratrol - Transdermal is more effective mg. for mg. but it can be dosed higher oral for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral.

Epiandrosterone - it is effective both ways. Transdermal requires less of a dose but it can be dosed higher orally for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral. For this one, it really just depends on what you prefer.

7-Keto/7-OXO - it is effective both ways. Dose per dose it could be said to be better in transdermal but the great majority of the studies are done on it orally so there is no disputing that it works orally.

Not so much on this forum, but in general, sometimes you see people some really weird things in transdermal form that don't even make sense; like they don't realize that there are a variety of factors to determine which way is better. Transdermal is great for things it works for but some things it simple doesn't work for like things that have too high of a molecular weight for.


So there's no definitive answer to this other than the truthful one in that the 'which is better' argument has to be determined on an ingredient by ingredient basis and that in some cases it really doesn't matter.

 

[thebigt]

I think that both are great options and it really just depends on the individual ingredient.

B-Androstenetriol - Transdermal.
Formestane - Transdermal.

Trans Resveratrol - Transdermal is more effective mg. for mg. but it can be dosed higher oral for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral.

Epiandrosterone - it is effective both ways. Transdermal requires less of a dose but it can be dosed higher orally for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral. For this one, it really just depends on what you prefer.

7-Keto/7-OXO - it is effective both ways. Dose per dose it could be said to be better in transdermal but the great majority of the studies are done on it orally so there is no disputing that it works orally.

Not so much on this forum, but in general, sometimes you see people some really weird things in transdermal form that don't even make sense; like they don't realize that there are a variety of factors to determine which way is better. Transdermal is great for things it works for but some things it simple doesn't work for like things that have too high of a molecular weight for.


So there's no definitive answer to this other than the truthful one in that the 'which is better' argument has to be determined on an ingredient by ingredient basis and that in some cases it really doesn't matter.

bang for the buck of ingredients you listed transdermal wins-eh?

not arguing that those ingredients can't be/aren't effective orally...my argument is that mg per mg you are going to get more value for your dollar going with transdermal.

 

[Iwilleattuna]

could be individual dependent too

 

[thebigt]

could be individual dependent too

i don't have dependents anymore, they are all grown. but they are still individuals though!!!

 

[GreenMachineX]

I've been wondering, does transdermal dhea or sublingual dhea prevent the dhea from converting into other androgens or estrogen? If the goal would be to maximize only dhea levels and minimize conversion to other things...

 

[sns8778]

bang for the buck of ingredients you listed transdermal wins-eh?

not arguing that those ingredients can't be/aren't effective orally...my argument is that mg per mg you are going to get more value for your dollar going with transdermal.

Respectfully disagree.

If you're just talking about cost per mg., sure.
And if the person/company is making their transdermals in house, probably.
But if having the transdermals professionally made, then the cost to make a bottle of transdermals costs more than the cost to make a bottle of capsules so the difference pretty much averages out.

The ultimate deciding factor imo for a product that is suitable to be used both ways is just personal preference; and importantly, which way is a person more likely to take it correctly. It's been so many times, and I'm guilty of this myself - that many people are much more likely to miss a dose of a transdermal than the dose of a capsule product bc of the time involved.

I think the answer to the question is really that it depends on the individual ingredient as far as which way is best. And then for ingredients that can be used both ways, it really comes down to personal preference.

 

[sns8778]

I've been wondering, does transdermal dhea or sublingual dhea prevent the dhea from converting into other androgens or estrogen? If the goal would be to maximize only dhea levels and minimize conversion to other things...

My understanding on this, and I need to look into it more so I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct, is that it helps it get into the bloodstream more effectively and helps in absorption so you get more benefit from a lower dose and that it should help reduce, but not prevent conversion.

 

[barische]

how about ursolic acid TD?

 

[sns8778]

how about ursolic acid TD?

I think Ursolic Acid is good in a transdermal.

There's so much debate on whether its good at all orally. Some people talk like it absolutely is; some people talk like it absolutely isn't. My take on it is that I think orally at a high enough dose its going to work well for some people, and maybe not so much so for others. People argue so much in absolutes when the reality sometimes is that just depends on individual response.

 

[mase1]

I'm not a fan of any transdermals. They are effective but just not for me. Would much rather pass on it and then find something oral to work.

 

[tenorguy33]

Respectfully disagree.

If you're just talking about cost per mg., sure.
And if the person/company is making their transdermals in house, probably.
But if having the transdermals professionally made, then the cost to make a bottle of transdermals costs more than the cost to make a bottle of capsules so the difference pretty much averages out.

The ultimate deciding factor imo for a product that is suitable to be used both ways is just personal preference; and importantly, which way is a person more likely to take it correctly. It's been so many times, and I'm guilty of this myself - that many people are much more likely to miss a dose of a transdermal than the dose of a capsule product bc of the time involved.

I think the answer to the question is really that it depends on the individual ingredient as far as which way is best. And then for ingredients that can be used both ways, it really comes down to personal preference.

This is totally it for me! When the product has similar efficacy in either form, personal convenience and ease of consistency is definitely the biggest picture. Even though the price per mg may be different most of these products cost roughly $40-50 regardless. Even if one form was a little more money, sometimes the convenience is worth the cost. In this instance, I would prefer the capsule.

Now if it was an ingredient that doesn’t work well orally, and I really wanted to use it, I would suck it up and make the TD version work. I absolutely wouldn’t be willing to do this for multiple compounds at the same time though. (That’s just me, I know plenty of people do and that’s great too. Just doesn’t work for me)

 

[sns8778]

I'm not a fan of any transdermals. They are effective but just not for me. Would much rather pass on it and then find something oral to work.

Thank you for posting and sharing. You're a great example of what I meant about the personal convenience part in that some people would just rather not take something than take transdermals and find an oral alternative.

 

[sns8778]

This is totally it for me! When the product has similar efficacy in either form, personal convenience and ease of consistency is definitely the biggest picture. Even though the price per mg may be different most of these products cost roughly $40-50 regardless. Even if one form was a little more money, sometimes the convenience is worth the cost. In this instance, I would prefer the capsule.

Now if it was an ingredient that doesn’t work well orally, and I really wanted to use it, I would suck it up and make the TD version work. I absolutely wouldn’t be willing to do this for multiple compounds at the same time though. (That’s just me, I know plenty of people do and that’s great too. Just doesn’t work for me)

Thank you for posting.

You made a great point in your last part that I almost included in my last post - that the average person that will use transdermals to begin with will use 1, maybe 2 transdermals max.

I'm a fan of transdermals, but even for me, I've been debating an Epiandrosterone run but I'm more likely to use Stano-Plex than EpiAndro Gel primarily bc I'm much more likely to miss a dose of EpiAndro Gel then I am Stano-Plex and also bc I'm going to be using Ab-Solved too.

 

[thebigt]

Respectfully disagree.

If you're just talking about cost per mg., sure.
And if the person/company is making their transdermals in house, probably.
But if having the transdermals professionally made, then the cost to make a bottle of transdermals costs more than the cost to make a bottle of capsules so the difference pretty much averages out.

The ultimate deciding factor imo for a product that is suitable to be used both ways is just personal preference; and importantly, which way is a person more likely to take it correctly. It's been so many times, and I'm guilty of this myself - that many people are much more likely to miss a dose of a transdermal than the dose of a capsule product bc of the time involved.

I think the answer to the question is really that it depends on the individual ingredient as far as which way is best. And then for ingredients that can be used both ways, it really comes down to personal preference.

what about the list that was posted in original post..

bAET
trans resveratrol
epiandrosterone
androsterone
and then we have ursolic acid, 11-kt.....some of those, in particular androsterone are expensive ingredients, getting what could be twice as effective mg to mg from transdermal delivery versus oral seems like a good thing to me.

personally i look to get the most value for my money

 

[sns8778]

what about the list that was posted in original post..

bAET
trans resveratrol
epiandrosterone
androsterone
and then we have ursolic acid, 11-kt.....some of those, in particular androsterone are expensive ingredients, getting what could be twice as effective mg to mg from transdermal delivery versus oral seems like a good thing to me.

I'm sorry, I thought I covered this in post #7 above.

I think its not good to assume that one would get twice the effective mg. to mg. from transdermal versus oral; it doesn't always work like that. That's one where people want direct conversion %'s but its all guesswork, in very few cases does data actually convey a direct % difference. So a lot of transdermal dosing is guesswork. I don't mean that as a bad thing, its just the truth.

B-Androstenetriol - Transdermal (I probably wouldn't even bother orally)

Trans Resveratrol - Transdermal is more effective mg. for mg. but it can be dosed higher oral for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral and would likely cost average out.

Epiandrosterone - it is effective both ways. Transdermal requires less of a dose but it can be dosed higher orally for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral. Cost wise is going to be close to the same. For this one, it really just depends on what you prefer.

Androsterone - I didn't address this one because there is much disagreement over the oral bioavailability. I also intentionally skipped it because I was trying not to address the part that a lot of raw Androsterone raw materials aren't really Androsterone and that a lot of suppliers try to pass off Epiandro raws as Androsterone bc Androsterone is quite a bit more expensive and a lot of companies don't test every batch to see. This is an ingredient that whether a company is offering orally or transdermally, I would encourage everyone to test every batch and just factor a testing cost into the raw material cost.

Ursolic Acid I covered above but here is a copy and paste:
I think Ursolic Acid is good in a transdermal. There's so much debate on whether its good at all orally. Some people talk like it absolutely is; some people talk like it absolutely isn't. My take on it is that I think orally at a high enough dose its going to work well for some people, and maybe not so much so for others. People argue so much in absolutes when the reality sometimes is that just depends on individual response. Additionally the type and % purity needed for a transdermal is different than an oral so in this case raws are actually a lot cheaper for an oral bc the 25% and 50% raws you could use 4+ times the amount of for less than a 98%. BUT I think for most people a transdermal will be more effective BUT I also disagree with people that say an oral option isn't good at all. Transdermal better; highly dosed oral still may be good for people that won't use a transdermal.

11-KT - I have read vastly different opinions on oral bioavailility on this one. I'm not even sure that anyone even offers it in capsule form anymore so TD may be the only option left on it.


I understand where you're going with this thread and I like casual discussion on things like this. It's just hard sometimes for threads like this not to seem like people are bashing one or the other form. That's why I'm trying to present everything as a both sides of the argument type of thing.

 

[thebigt]

I'm sorry, I thought I covered this in post #7 above.

I think its not good to assume that one would get twice the effective mg. to mg. from transdermal versus oral; it doesn't always work like that. That's one where people want direct conversion %'s but its all guesswork, in very few cases does data actually convey a direct % difference. So a lot of transdermal dosing is guesswork. I don't mean that as a bad thing, its just the truth.

B-Androstenetriol - Transdermal (I probably wouldn't even bother orally)

Trans Resveratrol - Transdermal is more effective mg. for mg. but it can be dosed higher oral for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral and would likely cost average out.

Epiandrosterone - it is effective both ways. Transdermal requires less of a dose but it can be dosed higher orally for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral. Cost wise is going to be close to the same. For this one, it really just depends on what you prefer.

Androsterone - I didn't address this one because there is much disagreement over the oral bioavailability. I also intentionally skipped it because I was trying not to address the part that a lot of raw Androsterone raw materials aren't really Androsterone and that a lot of suppliers try to pass off Epiandro raws as Androsterone bc Androsterone is quite a bit more expensive and a lot of companies don't test every batch to see. This is an ingredient that whether a company is offering orally or transdermally, I would encourage everyone to test every batch and just factor a testing cost into the raw material cost.

Ursolic Acid I covered above but here is a copy and paste:
I think Ursolic Acid is good in a transdermal. There's so much debate on whether its good at all orally. Some people talk like it absolutely is; some people talk like it absolutely isn't. My take on it is that I think orally at a high enough dose its going to work well for some people, and maybe not so much so for others. People argue so much in absolutes when the reality sometimes is that just depends on individual response. Additionally the type and % purity needed for a transdermal is different than an oral so in this case raws are actually a lot cheaper for an oral bc the 25% and 50% raws you could use 4+ times the amount of for less than a 98%. BUT I think for most people a transdermal will be more effective BUT I also disagree with people that say an oral option isn't good at all. Transdermal better; highly dosed oral still may be good for people that won't use a transdermal.

11-KT - I have read vastly different opinions on oral bioavailility on this one. I'm not even sure that anyone even offers it in capsule form anymore so TD may be the only option left on it.


I understand where you're going with this thread and I like casual discussion on things like this. It's just hard sometimes for threads like this not to seem like people are bashing one or the other form. That's why I'm trying to present everything as a both sides of the argument type of thing.

why is it bashing to state the obvious....transdermal delivery is more value for the dollar-agreed?

 

[sns8778]

why is it bashing to state the obvious....transdermal delivery is more value for the dollar-agreed?

I didn't say that me and you were; I said:
It's just hard sometimes for threads like this not to seem like people are bashing one or the other form.

^^^ I meant that its hard for people reading to think that people have a bias one way or the other; and for some people, their bias gets perceived as bashing. I didn't mean me and you


And I'm sorry but no, I respectfully disagree; I don't think transdermal delivery is always better dollar for dollar, especially if the company is having them professionally made.



Cost per mg. - of course its cheaper, but there's more to the cost of a finished product than just raws.

If the company is making their transdermals in house, of course its going to be cheaper on them in terms of finished product.

But if companies are having the transdermals professionally made, then the cost to make a bottle of transdermals costs more than the cost to make a bottle of capsules so the difference a lot of the times averages out.


I think that the real answer is that sometimes transdermal delivery is the more cost effective method but sometimes it isn't. I don't think this is the type question that has a definitive yes or no answer bc I think it depends on the ingredient(s).

And that for ingredients that can be used orally or in transdermal, its good for people to have options so that they can pick which ones best suit their individual needs.

 

[Kronic]

Isn't it true that TDs have some local effects? Making it so you can spot treat a little (if it's a good application site)

 

[sns8778]

Isn't it true that TDs have some local effects? Making it so you can spot treat a little (if it's a good application site)

Transdermal carriers can be either localized or systemic.
However, even with localized ones, a small portion will be systemic.
Conversely, even for systemic ones, a small portion may be localized.

 

[hercules_22]

Shiiid I'm getting tired of having to wait to let these TDs dry. Ultra Hard drives somewhat quickly but waiting for nos 11kt, neuro p5, neuro dhea to dry gets inconvenient when needing to get dressed in a hurry. Also I cant dose my TDs before my workout since I train first thing in the morning. Let's not forget trying to find a spot for all of them without putting my family at risk for cross contamination has been tedious. So ultimately like @sns8778 stated it really depends on personal preference and your unique situation.

 

[djbombsquad]

I think that both are great options and it really just depends on the individual ingredient.

B-Androstenetriol - Transdermal.
Formestane - Transdermal.

Trans Resveratrol - Transdermal is more effective mg. for mg. but it can be dosed higher oral for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral.

Epiandrosterone - it is effective both ways. Transdermal requires less of a dose but it can be dosed higher orally for the same effectiveness for people that prefer oral. For this one, it really just depends on what you prefer.

7-Keto/7-OXO - it is effective both ways. Dose per dose it could be said to be better in transdermal but the great majority of the studies are done on it orally so there is no disputing that it works orally.

Not so much on this forum, but in general, sometimes you see people some really weird things in transdermal form that don't even make sense; like they don't realize that there are a variety of factors to determine which way is better. Transdermal is great for things it works for but some things it simple doesn't work for like things that have too high of a molecular weight for.


So there's no definitive answer to this other than the truthful one in that the 'which is better' argument has to be determined on an ingredient by ingredient basis and that in some cases it really doesn't matter.

What about whey ?

 

[Renew1]

Shiiid I'm getting tired of having to wait to let these TDs dry. Ultra Hard drives somewhat quickly but waiting for nos 11kt, neuro p5, neuro dhea to dry gets inconvenient when needing to get dressed in a hurry. Also I cant dose my TDs before my workout since I train first thing in the morning. Let's not forget trying to find a spot for all of them without putting my family at risk for cross contamination has been tedious. So ultimately like @sns8778 stated it really depends on personal preference and your unique situation.

LOL.
Yep.

I'm guessing your personal situation is "Batman", because the rest of us aren't "having to wait" for more than a couple of minutes for these things to dry.

 

[ANABOLICWRWLF]

I think there's definitely a risk:reward or pro:con scenario at play. I'm using some td's right now that I don't want to rub off on my wife or son which I've been very conscious of whereas a pill I could just pop and roll. However I'm able to use less of the compound because of the effectiveness of the method of administration.

What I think is interesting in this regard is if we assume for the time being that the effective doses of a td and oral version of the same compound were to be acquired for roughly the same cost so as to remove that variable from the equation, does the amount ingested have a more or less deleterious result on the organs based on the application?

Meaning if I take 1x Compound X transdermally or 3x Compound X orally does this mean that since it takes 3 times as much orally to have the same effect that it is necessarily 3x as taxing on the body? Or since the results are the same with 1xTD = 3xO then the stress on the body is equal as well?

 

[ironkill]

what about the list that was posted in original post..

bAET
trans resveratrol
epiandrosterone
androsterone
and then we have ursolic acid, 11-kt.....some of those, in particular androsterone are expensive ingredients, getting what could be twice as effective mg to mg from transdermal delivery versus oral seems like a good thing to me.

personally i look to get the most value for my money

Is there any science to back the claim it's twice as effective?

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

My understanding on this, and I need to look into it more so I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct, is that it helps it get into the bloodstream more effectively and helps in absorption so you get more benefit from a lower dose and that it should help reduce, but not prevent conversion.

i remeber eric was explaining to me many years ago that there was some research indicating that there are certain areas on the skin that pool certain enzymes which are needed to convert these andros, I dont recall the subject being how to make them convert to certain outcomes. that as i remember was something done with other herbs and such that may have downstream effects on enzyme production.

 

[sns8778]

What about whey ?

I think you already know the answer to that one haha.

 

[sns8778]

I think there's definitely a risk:reward or pro:con scenario at play. I'm using some td's right now that I don't want to rub off on my wife or son which I've been very conscious of whereas a pill I could just pop and roll. However I'm able to use less of the compound because of the effectiveness of the method of administration.

What I think is interesting in this regard is if we assume for the time being that the effective doses of a td and oral version of the same compound were to be acquired for roughly the same cost so as to remove that variable from the equation, does the amount ingested have a more or less deleterious result on the organs based on the application?

Meaning if I take 1x Compound X transdermally or 3x Compound X orally does this mean that since it takes 3 times as much orally to have the same effect that it is necessarily 3x as taxing on the body? Or since the results are the same with 1xTD = 3xO then the stress on the body is equal as well?

No, it wouldn't because most of the compounds used transdermally aren't very taxing on the body to begin with. Things like methyl's for example that were harsh on the body were never good candidates for transdermals to begin with.

 

[sns8778]

i remeber eric was explaining to me many years ago that there was some research indicating that there are certain areas on the skin that pool certain enzymes which are needed to convert these andros, I dont recall the subject being how to make them convert to certain outcomes. that as i remember was something done with other herbs and such that may have downstream effects on enzyme production.

I think that part he would have been referring to was largely theory and no one really knows whether it would actually translate into real world results or not. Wouldn't hurt, just may not would actually help type of thing.

For ones used systemically, I've always seen the recommendation to be large thing surface areas of skin. For example, when I use Suppress-C (B-Androstenetriol) I rotate application spots between inside of arms, inside of thighs, and tops of feet.

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

there is actually some pretty compelling studies into it IMO.
this one is shows that when DHEA is applied to post pregnant women's skin, it has more available enzymes to convert DHEAs into test, whereas, when they applied it to the vag, it converted mostly to estrogen. I am not a great researcher, so there is that.
Invalid Link Removed

 

[sns8778]

there is actually some pretty compelling studies into it IMO.
this one is shows that when DHEA is applied to post pregnant women's skin, it has more available enzymes to convert DHEAs into test, whereas, when they applied it to the vag, it converted mostly to estrogen. I am not a great researcher, so there is that.
Invalid Link Removed

I had seen that but the reason I consider that more theory on my end is that is the key words 'women', 'pregnant', and the body part it was being compared to applying to. I can see where some people make correlations, and that's why I said it wouldn't hurt, just not sure if it would help. I just feel like there are too many variables to say for sure there is a direct correlation to guys.

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

yea but thats the low hanging fruit.. there is one showing pooling in the shoulder area, specifically in men. maybe someone has the time to dig that one up.

 

[Beau]

I think you already know the answer to that one haha.

I had a sophomoric response to the transdermal protein thing, but decided against it. In that case oral or transdermal both seem awesome.

 

[sns8778]

yea but thats the low hanging fruit.. there is one showing pooling in the shoulder area, specifically in men. maybe someone has the time to dig that one up.

I vaguely remember that one but had forgot it until you mentioned it. The argument for would have been the enzymes in the area; the argument against would have been increased levels of inflammation in the area as a result of working out could have theoretically hindered.

To anyone reading, I wanted to clarify we are now discussing specific to the DHEA transdermals and not others.

Btw... I appreciate the intelligent conversation and professional handling of the conversation. I like being able to have discussions about stuff like this that aren't brand dependent.

 

[Beau]

yea but thats the low hanging fruit..

I think @thebigt likes women having low hanging fruit ...

 

[thebigt]

I vaguely remember that one but had forgot it until you mentioned it. The argument for would have been the enzymes in the area; the argument against would have been increased levels of inflammation in the area as a result of working out could have theoretically hindered.

To anyone reading, I wanted to clarify we are now discussing specific to the DHEA transdermals and not others.

Btw... I appreciate the intelligent conversation and professional handling of the conversation. I like being able to have discussions about stuff like this that aren't brand dependent.

a pretty large percentage of transdermals ARE dhea based......

 

[thebigt]

I think @thebigt likes women having low hanging fruit ...

shione cooper

 

[sns8778]

a pretty large percentage of transdermals ARE dhea based......

A lot of them are; but there are a lot that aren't too so I wanted to make sure everyone following along understood correctly.

The point that I was trying to make was to make sure that anyone reading this thread (whether now or in the future) that wasn't familiar with these types of products would know that with what him and I were discussing, we were talking about specific ones and not all of them.

I also want to clarify that even with the discussion pertaining to DHEA based ones, it is about DHEA systemic ones and not localized ones bc you would want to apply localized ones to particular areas. For example - Ab-Solved contains 7OXO DHEA and would be applied to problem areas like the love handles or midsection.

 

[thebigt]

A lot of them are; but there are a lot that aren't too so I wanted to make sure everyone following along understood correctly.

The point that I was trying to make was to make sure that anyone reading this thread (whether now or in the future) that wasn't familiar with these types of products would know that with what him and I were discussing, we were talking about specific ones and not all of them.

I also want to clarify that even with the discussion pertaining to DHEA based ones, it is about DHEA systemic ones and not localized ones bc you would want to apply localized ones to particular areas. For example - Ab-Solved contains 7OXO DHEA and would be applied to problem areas like the love handles or midsection.

are you affiliated with XPG? i ask because this is the 2nd time you have specifically mentioned their products.

 

[sns8778]

are you affiliated with XPG? i ask because this is the 2nd time you have specifically mentioned their products.

As you know, Suppress-C was originally a Competitive Edge Labs product (or at least I think you knew that bc CEL Suppress-C was out at the same time as the old CEL Formestane and I know you loved that). Xtreme Performance Gels licenses the name Suppress-C just like they license the rights to the Ab-Solved name from Avant. Them licensing the name Suppress-C from CEL was stated in their Suppress-C intro thread as was their licensing the name Ab-Solved from Avant in the Ab-Solved into thread.

The reason I mentioned Ab-Solved by name above was in context of the discussion:
- I had stated that for anyone reading the thread, I wanted to make sure that they knew that what xR1pp3Rx and I were discussing was specific to DHEA based transdermals; in an effort to help educate people that aren't that familiar with the subject matter. I didn't want anyone to confused and think we were saying that all TD's may be better to be applied to the shoulders for example bc that could lead to confusion on a couple levels. For example, what if someone said - well, I'm only going to use one TD bc I don't have anywhere else to apply them; or if for example Rob or Nostrum tell someone to apply product XYZ to the inside of their arms or thighs, I didn't want it to appear that me and xR1pp3Rx were saying it was a bad idea or something like that. Which is why I also kept reiterating that I'm not sure if the theoretical discussion he and I were having would even help, but it wouldn't hurt either.

Here was my exact quote in italics:
I also want to clarify that even with the discussion pertaining to DHEA based ones, it is about DHEA systemic ones and not localized ones bc you would want to apply localized ones to particular areas. For example - Ab-Solved contains 7OXO DHEA and would be applied to problem areas like the love handles or midsection.

^^^ You had said that a lot of TD's were DHEA based and you are correct. And xR1pp3Rx and I had been discussing the theory of application on the shoulders for DHEA based TD's. And I'd already answered someone's question and explained earlier in the thread that there were both localized and systemic TD's. So I wanted to clarify that the conversation we were having was specific to systemic ones, not localized ones. I wanted to clarify to anyone reading that Ab-Solved is localized, not systemic so their directions for applying it to problem areas like the love handles or midsection is correct and that neither of us were disagreeing with that.

Also, Ab-Solved was fresh on my mind as I had just replied to someone in another thread about stacking Lean Edge & Ab-Solved and said that I planned on starting that stack next week or week after myself.

Plus, it was just the only DHEA based product that popped into my head to use as an example of being localized and not systemic.

Overall, in terms of this thread in general, I've just wanted to make sure that anyone reading this thread whether now or in the future can follow along and easily follow and understand the conversation. Sometimes I may come off as over-explaining or stating the obvious to people that already understand the subject matter but what I'm really trying to do is help people that are reading but not necessarily posting or who may find this thread in a google search 6 months or a year from now.

 

[xR1pp3Rx]

Btw... I appreciate the intelligent conversation and professional handling of the conversation. I like being able to have discussions about stuff like this that aren't brand dependent.

I agree 100%, it cant be much longer before the complete breakdown of egos in this thread though, can it?> HAHA I joke.

Seems like everyone here is ace players and I'm sure are soaking up the info sharing. Its usually 1-2 people rub each other wrong and its off to the races!
Anyhow, I too have been enjoying the cogent banter and infoz. I'd like for it to remain that way too~ hopefully I don't come off as a brand sloth, Its easy to do, but I personally like ANY brands products so long as its well thought out and accurately labeled... Hell I have bought vitamins at wally world... (come at me bros)