As a whole :
1.It does not apply TPDS correctly (Nimni et al, 1989,1997,1998) by omitting acetone, which is clearly the better penetrant as demonstrated by onken and Moyer in 1963, and explained by Idson in 1975, basing himself on Mclellan (1949) and Fitzgerald (1957).
2.TPDS gets fucked up by adding non-evaporating products, such as penetration enhancers. The PE's in Lipo are only effective in a fairly large volume (several percent each) forming a substantial amount of product that inhibits the evaporation of the first phase of TPDS. This causes the first phase to partially traverse the skin, still carrying some of the product (since it wasn't funneled to the second phase by evaporation). The first phase, being a better solvent, is not a carrier and results in systemic delivery of a significant amount of product.
3.Said PE's are also good solvents for the organic molecules, more so than benzyl alcohol. Benzyl forms micelles with organic compounds in an aqueous environment only, in a non-polar environment the compounds show more affinity for the less polar solvent , including most of the PE's included. This means apart from the amount dissolved in the non-evaporated first phase, an amount of compound is dissolved in the susbtantial amount of PE included. These ALSO do NOT act as carriers and result in systemic delivery.
4.Combined points 2 and 3 completely negate the point of adding PE's, since whatever gets across the skin more than without them, is taken up systemically. Given the good penetration rate of the benzyl micelles one could probably assume that LESS product makes it to the local area. My experiences confirm this, a Lipo analog was outperformed by the much cheaper pure TPDS in correct application (using only benzyl, acetone and isopropanol). You can find instructions on making the latter for a whole lot less money than Lipo, in this section as well.
5.Lipo also contains glycerol, a highly hygroscopic product. That means it has a high affinity for water. These substances tend to dehydrate the skin and decrease permeation (Idson, 1975). This has also been reiterated in The work of Barry et al in 1972 concerning diminished returns of topical application. A single application evoked a resistance to permeation that lasted in excess of one week, and one of the possible explanations was increased dehydration of the skin.
6.Glycerol does not readily penetrate the skin, mostly because it draws water, forming a large acqueous mass that is usually lost and does not penetrate. Apart from that it also shows interaction with the hydroxyl group on the benzyl alcohol, and may prevent benzyl alcohol from penetrating, effectively reducing the amount of vehicle, again resulting in a) reduced uptake, and b) increased systemic uptake of what does pass.
7.One of the ingredients is tyramine, a product that shows very limited lipolytic action and contrary to that, a very large amount of ANTI-lipolytic action due to its interactions with amino oxidases. something that is supposedly solved by the addition of products like NAC. Except these products only adress MAO, and not the principle SSA oxidation. And aparrently someone forgot to inform the people at avant that NAC is too hydrophillic to form a micelle with benzyl, and therefor will NOT pass the skin, and in case any minimal amount should make it through, it will be taken up systemically.
8.Another ingredient is octopamine, a specific b3-agonist. This is of course ridiculous since norepinephrine shows a 2-fold higher activation of the b3-receptor than octopamine does, humans possess very little b3 receptors, and of all things subcutanoeus fat contains the very least amount of b3-receptors of all fat depots. On top of that, the principle ingredient yohimbine blocks the alpha-2 receptor, which effectively inhibits the b3-receptor.
9.It contains caffeine. In itself not a bad choice, except they seem to claim that local caffeine acts as a diuretic. Xanthines work as diuretics via effects on the kidney. Local caffeine has no effect as a diuretic. On top of that, why did they opt for caffeine and not a less water-soluble xanthine like aminophylline ? Aminophylline that after has extensive research behind it as a topical fat loss aid.
These are just SOME of the concerns associated with the efficacy of Lipoderm ODB. That is not to say it doesn't work at all, but why fork over that cash if you can make an imminently better product yourself for so much less ?
. What you mention about tyramine, is that only as a topical, or does that apply to oral supplementation like with Avant's H.E.A.T or Xtreme Formulations Chizled as well?