Oral Epicatechin vs TD

Status
Not open for further replies.
barische said:
For what its worth, just started epichaos 3 days ago and my close grip bench is up by couple reps.. hmmm

waiting for dps to stock up anacyclus and m-test. I will be ordering epi-plex and will run that after epichaos
Click to expand...

I think you'll be very happy with the Epi-Plex/M-Test/Anacyclus XT stack. M-Test should be back in stock next week. It will likely be a couple of weeks before DPS is resupplied on Anacyclus XT. We are almost completely out of Anacyclus XT, but if that's a stack you're wanting to do soon, PM me and I'll set you a bottle aside.
 
Kronic said:
reading thru the chaos, you're supposed to do oral epicatechin with food?
Click to expand...

I take it both ways, whichever is most convenient at the time.
 
Respectfully,

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.


The information I presented was from the *available* body of facts regarding epicatechin metabolism, it *indicated* that my beliefs are valid. You can say it's not enough evidence or that it's not compelling enough evidence or that it's not proof but I absolutely, positively, presented evidence.
 
tubzy said:
You didn't technically provide direct evidence, respectfully. You provided speculation based on another oral study by using terms like "I assume" which is totally fine for representing your opinion but I was looking for a direct study that shows epicatechin absorbs through the skin. I don't want to be rubbing a transdermal with anti androgenic essential oils into my skin on a daily basis unless there is some significant benefit over oral epicatechin w/ piperine.

I understand the concept of compounds being able to absorb through the skin but there are a ton of variables at play like vehicle, molecular weight (Daltons) and half life.

For example, you could can dissolve epicatechin in DMSO and I'm sure some of it would definitely make it into the bloodstream since DMSO is so potent as a vehicle. However, that doesn't make it more effective unless possibly going for a more local approach in a specific area of the body/skin.

Lastly, TD is not always better in a generic term unless you just referring to hepatoxicity purposes. I guess it depends on what you define as better. There are different enzymes in the liver versus on the surface of the skin that can metabolize the compounds differently and also produce different downstream metabolites so it's not just good versus bad.
Click to expand...

Also, why do you believe the bioperine is helping? Is there a study that directly compares oral Epicatechin with bioperine to Epicatechin without bioperine and shows definitively that the combination is better?
 
nostrum420 said:
Also, why do you believe the bioperine is helping? Is there a study that directly compares oral Epicatechin with bioperine to Epicatechin without bioperine and shows definitively that the combination is better?
Click to expand...

So just to summarize before you pivot, back to my original question you don't have any direct evidence that transdermal is superior - got it.

I'm questioning the transdermal method since people are saying it's superior with no data behind it except anecdotal reports. You provided some strawman study of chocolate (not even isolated epicatechin) and gut metabolism with your own "assumptions" and speculation which proves nothing.

Like I said before, conjugated vs non conjugated is irrelevant when you are dealing with tons of variables for topicals like vehicle, molecular weight i.e. the larger the molecular the harder it will be to penetrate and half life, skin density.

Wait, are you sure you want to doubt the efficacy of bioperine on this forum? Do you know what an inhibitor of cytochrome P450 is and the loads of research on it?
 
tubzy said:
So just to summarize before you pivot, back to my original question you don't have any direct evidence that transdermal is superior - got it.

I'm questioning the transdermal method since people are saying it's superior with no data behind it except anecdotal reports. You provided some strawman study of chocolate (not even isolated epicatechin) and gut metabolism with your own "assumptions" and speculation which proves nothing.

Like I said before, conjugated vs non conjugated is irrelevant when you are dealing with tons of variables for topicals like vehicle, molecular weight i.e. the larger the molecular the harder it will be to penetrate and half life, skin density.

Wait, are you sure you want to doubt the efficacy of bioperine on this forum? Do you know what an inhibitor of cytochrome P450 is and the loads of research on it?
Click to expand...

Like how there's loads of research on TD formulation and the metabolic reasons for picking candidates for TD administration?

I'm not questioning the efficacy of bioperine I'm asking why you're not holding it to the same standard of needing a study that directly proves the specific combination.
 
tubzy said:
Like I said before, conjugated vs non conjugated is irrelevant when you are dealing with tons of variables for topicals like vehicle, molecular weight i.e. the larger the molecular the harder it will be to penetrate and half life, skin density.
Click to expand...

A compound being conjugated in the gut before entering the bloodstream is absolutely relevant. You do have kidneys, right?
 
This is all very interesting.
 
nostrum420 said:
Like how there's loads of research on TD formulation and the metabolic reasons for picking candidates for TD administration?

I'm not questioning the efficacy of bioperine I'm asking why you're not holding it to the same standard of needing a study that directly proves the specific combination.
Click to expand...

Your skin is not like some random piece of paper where whatever you put on it, it automatically absorbs like magic. It is actually quite the opposite and meant to be a barrier of keeping things out. This is why the lower molecular weight has increased permeability and more potent vehicles can penetrate the compound deeper (water vs ethanol vs DMSO).

Bioperine will inhibit the enzyme regardless of what compound you pair with it this is its own MoA regardless of epicatechin and this will prevent the breakdown of that compound in the liver which increases uptake in the bloodstream - there is loads of research showing this. There are no solubility, permeability, skin density application site variables in this method - that is why I hold it to a way less standard. There is zero information on the efficacy of epicatechin being absorbed topically in any vehicle in any study. We have no idea of how much actually makes it into the bloodstream and for how long etc. - unless maybe you want to melt down some chocolate and slather it all over your body and then do an timed assay for epicatechin content. Since you are the one arguing topical epicatechin is more effective than oral the burden falls on you to produce that.
 
nostrum420 said:
Thank you for admitting that

Now, which one of us do you think knows more about what does or does not permeate the corneum stratum?
Click to expand...

4,000 posts and 21 years later and yet still can't comprehend context - ouch.

I don't know - I just know I have researched and experimented with topicals for over a decade for treating steroid induced hair loss.
 
tubzy said:
4,000 posts and 21 years later and yet still can't comprehend context - ouch.

I don't know - I just know I have researched and experimented with topicals for over a decade for treating steroid induced hair loss.
Click to expand...

can you chill out dude. epichaos works great
 
tubzy said:
4,000 posts and 21 years later and yet still can't comprehend context - ouch.

I don't know - I just know I have researched and experimented with topicals for over a decade for treating steroid induced hair loss.
Click to expand...

There's context and then there's verbal diarrhea.

Really? Because I've developed carriers for things (like epicatechin) that others (major names in the industry) gave up on because they couldn't do it, couldn't keep it stable and/or couldn't make it cost-effective. This is literally what I do for a living but please tell me more about the multiple factors that affect TD delivery.
 
tubzy said:
4,000 posts and 21 years later and yet still can't comprehend context - ouch.

I don't know - I just know I have researched and experimented with topicals for over a decade for treating steroid induced hair loss.
Click to expand...

"Nonconjugates of nonmethylated and 3′-O-methylated forms were at low levels compared with conjugates of nonmethylated and 3′-O-methylated forms in the plasma of the CA, EC and MIX groups (Table 1). These results suggest that (+)-catechin and (−)-epicatechin were absorbed from the digestive tract, RAPIDLY CONJUGATED and present as metabolites in plasma. This confirms the proposition by Piskula and Terao (13)."

Nonconjugates of nonmethylated or 3′-O-methylated forms in the CA, EC and MIX groups were MINOR components in the plasma, especially the free 3′-O-methylated forms.

Invalid Link Removed

"The oral bioavailability of catechins is known to be LOW at LESS THAN 5%"

Invalid Link Removed

"It has been proposed that the first detoxification step of dietary EC, namely, glucuronidation, occurs at the level of the intestinal mucosa in rats, and EC enters the common blood circulation EXCLUSIVELY IN THE GLUCURONIZED FORM."

"Because ingested EC undergoes extensive conjugation, ITS BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITIES PREVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED IN VITRO MAY NOT BE OCCURRING IN IN VIVO SYSTEMS."

Invalid Link Removed

"the bioavailability of both compounds was LESS THAN 5%."

Invalid Link Removed

Hopefully, that's more than enough to establish the issues with oral administration. Since you know a lot about TDs from your experiments, I assume we can agree that TD administration has a large body of research regarding the evasion of these first pass metabolism issues? Or do I need to prove that too?
 
Last edited:
nostrum420 said:
"Nonconjugates of nonmethylated and 3′-O-methylated forms were at low levels compared with conjugates of nonmethylated and 3′-O-methylated forms in the plasma of the CA, EC and MIX groups (Table 1). These results suggest that (+)-catechin and (−)-epicatechin were absorbed from the digestive tract, RAPIDLY CONJUGATED and present as metabolites in plasma. This confirms the proposition by Piskula and Terao (13)."

Nonconjugates of nonmethylated or 3′-O-methylated forms in the CA, EC and MIX groups were MINOR components in the plasma, especially the free 3′-O-methylated forms.

Invalid Link Removed

"The oral bioavailability of catechins is known to be LOW at LESS THAN 5%"

Invalid Link Removed

"It has been proposed that the first detoxification step of dietary EC, namely, glucuronidation, occurs at the level of the intestinal mucosa in rats, and EC enters the common blood circulation EXCLUSIVELY IN THE GLUCURONIZED FORM."

"Because ingested EC undergoes extensive conjugation, ITS BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITIES PREVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED IN VITRO MAY NOT BE OCCURRING IN IN VIVO SYSTEMS."

Invalid Link Removed

"the bioavailability of both compounds was LESS THAN 5%."

Invalid Link Removed

Hopefully, that's more than enough to establish the issues with oral administration. Since you know a lot about TDs from your experiments, I assume we can agree that TD administration has a large body of research regarding the evasion of these first pass metabolism issues? Or do I need to prove that too?
Click to expand...

So your argument is because oral epicatechin is only absorbed less than 5% in a gut rat study therefore transdermal is somehow superior. While referencing an in vitro transdermal catechin study where they produce an electric static field to force a compound through the skin in a petri dish with no measurement if it even made it systematically.

You do know we have human studies with isolated oral epicatechin being effective at as little as 200mg in humans, right? This is even without bioperine.

Why are you arguing first pass? Cytochrome P450 is located within first pass metabolism and bioperine inhibits this enzyme which would further increase epicatechin uptake. Thanks for proving my point.
 
Kronic said:
can you chill out dude. epichaos works great
Click to expand...

I know I'm arguing against Renew's payroll squad but I'm not even bashing the product. I'm just simply refuting the claims that people are saying this is somehow superior than oral when all we have is anecdotal reports. If that triggers you that bad, it just shows your bias which is fine.

Honestly, the only criticism I have towards the product specifically is to remove the anti androgenic peppermint oil.
 
Kronic said:
can you chill out dude. epichaos works great
Click to expand...

I didn't take him as saying that Epichaos doesn't work. I took him as saying that Epichaos may work fine but that doesn't mean that oral Epicatechin doesn't work also.

I think that this whole argument could have been avoided if the product had been presented as a TD form of Epicatechin for those that like TD's better or find that they don't respond well to oral Epicatechin instead of it coming off as attacking and bashing towards oral Epicatechin.

Oral Epicatechin products like Epi-Plex, Follidrone, Epilogue, and more have been products that have been well liked by many people on here for years. Introducing a TD form for TD fans isn't a bad thing at all - but I don't think it needed to be done in a way to attack the ingredient itself and therefore the companies that have made and offered the oral form for years.

I know that I personally respond very well to Epi-Plex and it's been a part of my daily supplement regimen for a long time. And we have a lot of very satisfied customers and repeat sales on it that feel the same.

Hell, I made a post earlier in the thread trying to be a peacemaker and say that TD Epicatechin is an option for people that prefer TD's and may be a great option for people if they don't respond well to oral Epicatechin supplements. But that oral Epicatechin supplements work great for a lot of people and for those people that prefer orals and respond well to it, there's no reason for them to think that they 'need' to use a TD form. I thought that was about as honest and truthful as possible and I got attacked over that. Definitely changed my perspective of some things.
 
tubzy said:
So your argument is because oral epicatechin is only absorbed less than 5% in a gut rat study therefore transdermal is somehow superior. While referencing an in vitro transdermal catechin study where they produce an electric static field to force a compound through the skin in a petri dish with no measurement if it even made it systematically.

You do know we have human studies with isolated oral epicatechin being effective at as little as 200mg in humans, right? This is even without bioperine.

Why are you arguing first pass? Cytochrome P450 is located within first pass metabolism and bioperine inhibits this enzyme which would further increase epicatechin uptake. Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

How about you go ahead and present some evidence?
 
tubzy said:
I know I'm arguing against Renew's payroll squad but I'm not even bashing the product. I'm just simply refuting the claims that people are saying this is somehow superior than oral when all we have is anecdotal reports. If that triggers you that bad, it just shows your bias which is fine.

Honestly, the only criticism I have towards the product specifically is to remove the anti androgenic peppermint oil.
Click to expand...

Show me where anyone is being feminized by peppermint oil. LOL. You're reeeeally reaching now.
 
tubzy said:
I know I'm arguing against Renew's payroll squad but I'm not even bashing the product. I'm just simply refuting the claims that people are saying this is somehow superior than oral when all we have is anecdotal reports. If that triggers you that bad, it just shows your bias which is fine.

Honestly, the only criticism I have towards the product specifically is to remove the anti androgenic peppermint oil.
Click to expand...

Anti-androgenic? Not as a transdermal, unless you can cite a “study.”
 
sns8778 said:
I didn't take him as saying that Epichaos doesn't work. I took him as saying that Epichaos may work fine but that doesn't mean that oral Epicatechin doesn't work also.

I think that this whole argument could have been avoided if the product had been presented as a TD form of Epicatechin for those that like TD's better or find that they don't respond well to oral Epicatechin instead of it coming off as attacking and bashing towards oral Epicatechin.

Oral Epicatechin products like Epi-Plex, Follidrone, Epilogue, and more have been products that have been well liked by many people on here for years. Introducing a TD form for TD fans isn't a bad thing at all - but I don't think it needed to be done in a way to attack the ingredient itself and therefore the companies that have made and offered the oral form for years.

I know that I personally respond very well to Epi-Plex and it's been a part of my daily supplement regimen for a long time. And we have a lot of very satisfied customers and repeat sales on it that feel the same.

Hell, I made a post earlier in the thread trying to be a peacemaker and say that TD Epicatechin is an option for people that prefer TD's and may be a great option for people if they don't respond well to oral Epicatechin supplements. But that oral Epicatechin supplements work great for a lot of people and for those people that prefer orals and respond well to it, there's no reason for them to think that they 'need' to use a TD form. I thought that was about as honest and truthful as possible and I got attacked over that. Definitely changed my perspective of some things.
Click to expand...

I did not set out to attack you, only to defend my own position. If your product overcomes oral bioavailability issues by providing a high oral dose and adding an absorption enhancing agent then you've come up with a effective way to deliver the target. That doesn't mean there aren't issues with oral bioavailability it means you overcame them.

There was a request for evidence supporting TD administration vs oral and I provided a piece of evidence. (Again, evidence not proof, 1 fingerprint doesn't prove a murder but it may be evidence.) Then people starting shifting goal posts all over the place. "Any evidence" quickly turned to "overwhelming evidence" and words started getting redefined, so, yeah, that was frustrating. I apologize if that frustration came through in my responses
 
slickwillie said:
Anti-androgenic? Not as a transdermal, unless you can cite a “study.”
Click to expand...

Never said systematically, you do know you have androgen receptors in your skin right? That was just my personal suggestion not an argument since someone referenced this product specifically. I don't know what the purpose of peppermint oil is in this product other than to just be a filler.
 
tubzy said:
You can't prove a negative but great argument I enjoyed it. Maybe a little easier than I thought for someone with 4K posts though.
Click to expand...

You've made a number of affirmative claims even if some of them were tongue in cheek.

I remain the only person ITT to provide a single citation but sure engage the mental maturation of thinking you won.
 
tubzy said:
Never said systematically, you do know you have androgen receptors in your skin right? That was just my personal suggestion not an argument since someone referenced this product specifically. I don't know what the purpose of peppermint oil is in this product other than to just be a filler.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the purpose is to enhance absorption and penetration through the skin. Just a thought.
 
slickwillie said:
Perhaps the purpose is to enhance absorption and penetration through the skin. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Give the man a cigar (or blunt or you know whatever.)

"Essential oils and their constituents may be preferred over the traditionally used synthetics materials as safe and suitable permeation enhancers to promote the percutaneous absorption of hydrophilic and lipophilic drugs from topical formulation into the lower skin layers."

Invalid Link Removed
 
nostrum420 said:
You've made a number of affirmative claims even if some of them were tongue in cheek.

I remain the only person ITT to provide a single citation but sure engage the mental maturation of thinking you won.
Click to expand...

You made the claim that transdermal was superior now the burden on you falls to prove that - which you have not. This is how an argument works.

Instead you cited a rat study that just shows how oral epicatechin is less than 5% bioavailable in the gut and this means transdermal is better. Do you know what proving a negative means?
 
nostrum420 said:
Give the man a cigar (or blunt or you know whatever.)

"Essential oils and their constituents may be preferred over the traditionally used synthetics materials as safe and suitable permeation enhancers to promote the percutaneous absorption of hydrophilic and lipophilic drugs from topical formulation into the lower skin layers."

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

The formula already contains eucalyptus oil for that - why does it need peppermint too?

Ethanol, Benzyl Alcohol, Camellia sinensis extract (leaf), Epicatechin 95%, Glycerin, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Hydroxypropyl cellulose, purified water, Eucalyptus Globulus (Eucalyptus) Leaf Essential Oil, Mentha piperita (Peppermint) Leaf Essential Oil, Ascorbyl Palmitate
 
nostrum420 said:
It shows that epicatechin is conjugated in the gut and quickly excreted when consumed orally. I'd assume that if you took it with no other food molecules to get between the epicatechin and the sulfase and glucuronidase enzymes, you'd see even more conjugated material.

Being that TDs do not go through the gut, the active ingredients delivered from a TD application are not liable to being conjugated before entering the bloodstream. This way, you get unconjugated Epicatechin into the bloodstream and it takes much longer to be conjugated and excreted.
Click to expand...
dude if you say conjugated one more damn time!!! :D😂
 
tubzy said:
You made the claim that transdermal was superior now the burden on you falls to prove that - which you have not. This is how an argument works.

Instead you cited a rat study that just shows how oral epicatechin is less than 5% bioavailable in the gut and this means transdermal is better. Do you know what proving a negative means?
Click to expand...

It's fun when you run into these people who took the English class that comes before year one of speech and debate. You feel that you've disproven my side of the argument? Fine. In order to win a debate you have to not only disprove your opponent's argument but make your own argument and then prove that argument by presenting your own evidence.

You've made a number of claims about the universal efficacy of bioperine. You have not cited a single piece of evidence to support that position. You've alluded to some evidence but you have not provided a single citation. So, please do so, and do it while staying principled on your stances on in vitro studies and in vivo animal models as well as specificity of the study to the particular specifics of the subject at hand.

I'll wait.
 
tubzy said:
The formula already contains eucalyptus oil for that - why does it need peppermint too?

Ethanol, Benzyl Alcohol, Camellia sinensis extract (leaf), Epicatechin 95%, Glycerin, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Hydroxypropyl cellulose, purified water, Eucalyptus Globulus (Eucalyptus) Leaf Essential Oil, Mentha piperita (Peppermint) Leaf Essential Oil, Ascorbyl Palmitate
Click to expand...

Why are you the only one that gets to ask questions?
 
nostrum420 said:
It's fun when you run into these people who took the English class that comes before year one of speech and debate. You feel that you've disproven my side of the argument? Fine. In order to win a debate you have to not only disprove your opponent's argument but make your own argument and then prove that argument by presenting your own evidence.

You've made a number of claims about the universal efficacy of bioperine. You have not cited a single piece of evidence to support that position. You've alluded to some evidence but you have not provided a single citation. So, please do so, and do it while staying principled on your stances on in vitro studies and in vivo animal models as well as specificity of the study to the particular specifics of the subject at hand.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Since you conceded on your first argument, I have no problem providing evidence on bioperine since you will not start pivoting again.

I'll give you both, here is a study on both animals and humans.

Invalid Link Removed
 
tubzy said:
4,000 posts and 21 years later and yet still can't comprehend context - ouch.

I don't know - I just know I have researched and experimented with topicals for over a decade for treating steroid induced hair loss.
Click to expand...

Nostrum420 has been posting for the past 21 years? Wow. You sure about that? How is your research coming along on treating steroid induced hair loss? Asking for Derek with More Plates More Dates.
 
nostrum420 said:
You're asking people to concede to a point that you specifically stated you're not making?
Click to expand...

Looks like someone didn't get the joke. He wants me to cite a study showing transdermal peppermint oil can be absorbed but then proceeds to say peppermint oil is in the product to push absorption even further :)
 
tubzy said:
Since you conceded on your first argument, I have no problem providing evidence on bioperine since you will not start pivoting again.

I'll give you both, here is a study on both animals and humans.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Where does this say anything about Epicatechin?
 
tubzy said:
Looks like someone didn't get the joke. He wants me to cite a study showing transdermal peppermint oil can be absorbed but then proceeds to say peppermint oil is in the product to push absorption even further :)
Click to expand...

Ah, the "I was just kidding, didn't you get it?" A classic.

Variants: "Learn to take a joke, gawwwwd!" and "just keeeding!"
 
tubzy said:
I think it's fair to say I have been replying to more questions than you from you and your squad
Click to expand...

How are you going to complain both that I have a squad and that they're *not* defending me. Wouldn't the complaint about me "having a squad" be that you're artificially being ganged up on? If that's not happening what are you even saying here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top