# Specific Muscle Enhancement



## Twin Peak (Jul 16, 2003)

Is it possible to target growth to a specific muscle through supplementation?

In other words, if your left calf was disproportionate to your right, could you bring it up to speed?

What about if you just wanted to get your bis, or shoulders bigger?

Possible?


----------



## Arnold (Jul 16, 2003)

No.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 16, 2003)

Wrong.  Try again.


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 16, 2003)

I sense a hook....


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 16, 2003)

Actually, I am just trying to stimulate an interesting discussion.*  I'd have been happier had Prince explained why its impossible.

Clearly its "possible" the question is how, and whether it can be done given current knowledge.


*Okay, so that was only HALF the reason.


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 16, 2003)

Define "Supplimentation" ........i.e., via what means/vehicle?

Ah, spit it out.....what's new?


----------



## Arnold (Jul 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> I'd have been happier had Prince explained why its impossible.



I would be happy for you to explain how it IS possible (in your opinion that is, since there is no science to prove it) since you posed the question.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> I would be happy for you to explain how it IS possible (in your opinion that is, since there is no science to prove it) since you posed the question.



Why should I answer my own question? 

I can think of many different mechanisms how it *could* be possible.

But let me leave you with this, isn't it currently know and used that certain steroids can be injected into the muscle for site enhancement?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by DaMayor *_
> Define "Supplimentation" ........i.e., via what means/vehicle?



Any means, and vehicle.  Can it be done?  Why, or why not.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> But let me leave you with this, isn't it currently know and used that certain steroids can be injected into the muscle for site enhancement?



No, they cause inflamation, not actual muscle growth.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> No, they cause inflamation, not actual muscle growth.



That's not always true.

If the injection is intramuscular so that it eventually runs systemic, then you are correct.

If, on the other hand, the steroid can be localized and retained in the muscle, then it would not run systemic, but would have all of the benefits of that drug, for that muscle only.


----------



## Robboe (Jul 16, 2003)

While i do know half the reason why you've made this thread, i've always wondered if you could make the most of systemic distribution by keeping blood flow directed towards which-ever muscle group through constant repetition and tensing with a heavy enough weight to cause blood flow but a light enough weight not to cause localised overtraining. I doubt you could avoid the latter completely though and doing constant reps, even a set every hour, is quite impractical.


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> That's not always true.
> 
> If the injection is intramuscular so that it eventually runs systemic, then you are correct.
> ...



Alright, I think I see where you're going...to a degree. However, how could you contain the steroid, or whatever the mystery substance is, within the specific muscle in a mannor that would assure a symmetrical result? In other words, wouldn't you run the risk of creating an unbalanced or disproportionate muscle, thereby defeating the purpose?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 16, 2003)

DM, I am not sure what you are saying here.


----------



## Robboe (Jul 16, 2003)

He's saying if you get an uneven concentration of androgen within the muscle, say more on the left than the right, would this cause an issue for unsymmetrical growth?


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 16, 2003)

Thank you, fellow human being......Now if the could get the _Romulan_ to answer the question.

My question actually took away some credit from the body's ability to "self-correct" some conditions that might otherwise go awry. 
But yes, how would you avoid growing wop-sided muscle? Like, your calves, for example.


----------



## gopro (Jul 16, 2003)

Gopro waiting for the punchline...


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 16, 2003)

DaMayor injecting Equipoise while using a tourniquet to see if muscles develop equally.....


----------



## Mudge (Jul 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> But let me leave you with this, isn't it currently know and used that certain steroids can be injected into the muscle for site enhancement?



Keep in mind I'm no expert, but I wonder the claims of this seriously. Winny and suspension are the only two I can think of that people have claimed to work locally somewhat, your comments?


----------



## Mudge (Jul 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by DaMayor *_
> DaMayor injecting Equipoise while using a tourniquet to see if muscles develop equally.....



Ask Valentino


----------



## timinator (Jul 16, 2003)

the way to get a muscle area growing is to devote 8-12 weeks of specialization training.  any supplements then would directly hit the specialized muscle area.  what I mean is lets say you specialize on your legs, now a lot of the goodness of the supplement will then go to your legs.  so this is the best solution


----------



## Mudge (Jul 16, 2003)

I have read of routines based on doing nothing but xx bodyparts for 4-6 weeks, like "put 1-2" on your arms in 4-6 weeks" I forget what magazine printed that. I believe it had Jay Cutler in it, so I'm figuring 1998 ish?


----------



## gopro (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by timinator *_
> the way to get a muscle area growing is to devote 8-12 weeks of specialization training.  any supplements then would directly hit the specialized muscle area.  what I mean is lets say you specialize on your legs, now a lot of the goodness of the supplement will then go to your legs.  so this is the best solution



I don't think this is where TP is going with this. TP, I think, is alluding to the ability of a supplement to specifically "target" growth in a muscle group by somehow "directing" the supplement to affect that area. Kind of like a "smart bomb." Although this has been shown to be somewhat possible with site injection with certain steroids it is not currently possible with any OTC supplements.


----------



## gopro (Jul 17, 2003)

Unless...has Avant Labs come up with something revolutionary?? Could it be? We all wait patiently with bated breath...


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Ask Valentino



I was being facetious.....Ah, you knew that.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> I don't think this is where TP is going with this. TP, I think, is alluding to the ability of a supplement to specifically "target" growth in a muscle group by somehow "directing" the supplement to affect that area. Kind of like a "smart bomb." Although this has been shown to be somewhat possible with site injection with certain steroids it is not currently possible with any OTC supplements.



Exactly.

I honestly don't know the answer to DM's question.  Nor do I know much about site injections of steroids.  In fact, everything I know about I already stated, so it ain't much.

So, how about it.  What if you could design a way so that the creatine you ingested (for example) was all stored in a specific muscle group, rather than systemically.

Or if you figured out how to increase protein synthesis, in a specific muscle group?

But back to steroids.  We all know that steroids have negative systemic effects, yes.  Test suppression, etc, which is why they are cycled.  If you did site injections and avoided systemic effects, wouldn't you also avoid systemic sides?  Just a thought.

BTW, Rob, you certainly have a hint of what I am getting at, as you read my journal, and have more knowledge about Avant then pretty much anyone else here.  But I'd say its more like a third, rather than half, of what I am getting at.


----------



## gopro (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Exactly.
> 
> 
> ...



Are you referring to a way to use training methodology/supplementation combined to theoretically get a muscle specific effect, or supplementation ONLY?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Are you referring to a way to use training methodology/supplementation combined to theoretically get a muscle specific effect, or supplementation ONLY?



I am referring to supplementation only.  However, one would expect that if you had increased androgen in a muscle, or improved protein synthesis, one would think that they could increase training volume, etc, no?


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

I really have no idea how you would target something specifically, with an oral. I think of such an item were to exist, it WOULD be a serious breakthrough, I would litterally think it would have to trigger something in the brain to do such a thing.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

I agree.  But its kind of interesting to ponder.

Maybe you could convince the brain that a certain muscle was disproportionately small, so that it sent more nutrients to it?


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 17, 2003)

You _never_ understand what I'm talking about...what's new? 

Anyway.....Okay, but in order to do this, the 'substance' would have to be able to first identify, and then 'attach' itself the target.....sort of like GoPro suggested when using the phrase "smart bomb".
How could any suppliment 'recognize' a specific muscle or muscle group? Surely it would have to be introduced and then  isolated via some direct physical means.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Although this has been shown to be somewhat possible with site injection with certain steroids...



Not actual hypertrophy in the injected muscle, swelling, inflammation, yes, not real muscle growth.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> I agree.  But its kind of interesting to ponder.
> 
> Maybe you could convince the brain that a certain muscle was disproportionately small, so that it sent more nutrients to it?



How would we do this though   I am not sure that it could be done via a simple "chemical" or even hormones. I wonder how many bodybuilders see hypnotists 

It is interesting indeed, but it seems very futuristic, not being an MD or anything though, maybe it is actually within some kind of scientific reach. I spose I could try to do some digging because honestly I have very little understanding from A, to B, to C - where the body says "hey, adapt already."


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by DaMayor *_
> You _never_ understand what I'm talking about...what's new?
> 
> Anyway.....Okay, but in order to do this, the 'substance' would have to be able to first identify, and then 'attach' itself the target.....sort of like GoPro suggested when using the phrase "smart bomb".
> How could any suppliment 'recognize' a specific muscle or muscle group? Surely it would have to be introduced and then  isolated via some direct physical means.



Generally, I agree.  But you aren't suggesting that it is impossible to target a specific tissue area, over a systemic effect are you?


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> Not actual hypertrophy in the injected muscle, swelling, inflammation, yes, not real muscle growth.



Scientifically I can't say, but people swear localized stuff can work, winny and suspension are the only two I can recall - I wonder about HGH, eh. But without some science its up for debate/experience and I can't say I have that experience with any of the above items.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> But you aren't suggesting that it is impossible to target a specific tissue area, over a systemic effect are you?



Doing curls or benches is not going to make your ass bigger, so I would agree, it IS possible somehow - but how is the big mother of a question. To say it is impossible is to say that the body can't regulate, which about brings us down to the simplicity of a polyp/jellyfish.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> How would we do this though   I am not sure that it could be done via a simple "chemical" or even hormones. I wonder how many bodybuilders see hypnotists
> 
> It is interesting indeed, but it seems very futuristic, not being an MD or anything though, maybe it is actually within some kind of scientific reach. I spose I could try to do some digging because honestly I have very little understanding from A, to B, to C - where the body says "hey, adapt already."



Agreed.  I was just throwing out an idea.


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Generally, I agree.  But you aren't suggesting that it is impossible to target a specific tissue area, over a systemic effect are you?



No, I'm not saying that it is _impossible_ , just very difficult to acheive. In fact, I believe that there are certain cancer medications designed to seek out specific (cancerous) cells. (It's been a while since I read up on these.)
Regardless, you would still have to identify a specific characteristic of the targeted cell(s) within the muscle, which, to the best of my knowledge, is the same regardless of muscle group. (With the exception of cardiac/involuntary)


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

What I was getting it, is targeting specific tissue has already been done, in the supplement arena.

See, for example, Lipoderm-Y.


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 17, 2003)

Yeah, but fat and muscle are two different animals. Your talking about an effect over a generalized area vs. a more specific effect in a more isolated area. 
Where the hell's Rob....I need a translator.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by DaMayor *_
> Yeah, but fat and muscle are two different animals. Your talking about an effect over a generalized area vs. a more specific effect in a more isolated area.
> Where the hell's Rob....I need a translator.



What makes them so different, in this regard?


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 17, 2003)

Firstly, their cellular structures. Secondly, you're comparing lipolysis to hypertrophy.....two totally dofferent processes.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

All I am saying is, a technique has already been developed whereby a specific substance has been used to target tissue (in this case adipose) locally rather than systemically.

Why could the same or similar not be done in muscle?


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 17, 2003)

I'm sure it could, and expect that it will. But how could you isolate the effects to, say, your _Vastus externus_ with absolutely no effect on your _Vastus internus_?


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by DaMayor *_
> In fact, I believe that there are certain cancer medications designed to seek out specific (cancerous) cells.



That sounds alot easier though, to me anyway. You can basically fingerprint a cell, it will have certain attributes. Now say you know due to its molecular structure that it would attract a certain substance (like a binder that is magnetic), so build something that will destroy the cell by being attracted to it and thusly neutralizing it when combined or etc

Sounds easier to me, muscle is "muscle" in some sense, arm beef is not going to be so different from leg beef that I see something chemical magically floating only to the arm when taken orally.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> All I am saying is, a technique has already been developed whereby a specific substance has been used to target tissue (in this case adipose) locally rather than systemically.



Do you mean the topical stuff?


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 17, 2003)

Exactly.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

Well, you could argue I think that blood flow is for starters going to be alot worse in fat stores. Fast acting is what supposedly is responsible for site injections when we talk gear, because its only "fast acting" things that people claim work localized.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Do you mean the topical stuff?



In the context of the sentence you quoted, yes.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

Aye, it was the only stuff I knew of that worked "localized."


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

Not just any topical will work localized BTW.

For example, FL7 is a systemic fat burner, whereas Ab-Solved is not, though they use the same active ingredient.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Why could the same or similar not be done in muscle?



ummm....how come we cannot cure the common cold?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 17, 2003)

Prince, I really appreciate all of your helpful input in this thread.  Thanks.


----------



## Robboe (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> ummm....how come we cannot cure the common cold?



Cause it's more fun designing muscle buidling and fat burning supplements.

Who wants to be healthy when you can be huge and ripped?


----------



## Arnold (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Prince, I really appreciate all of your helpful input in this thread.  Thanks.



Lighten up.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

Oh well, seriously it about is a valid argument - if we can't even do that, how are we going to trigger the brain into favoring certain parts of the body? I seriously wonder about hypnotism though, how powerfull can it be to someone succeptible to suggestion.

I think comparing the fat to muscle is not really valid, the circulation is poor in fat store areas.


----------



## gopro (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> Not actual hypertrophy in the injected muscle, swelling, inflammation, yes, not real muscle growth.



Anectodal evidence shows otherwise my friend.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Anectodal evidence shows otherwise my friend.



yeah, but TP likes scientific evidence!


----------



## BeerHunter (Jul 17, 2003)

there was (years back) a transdermal that boasted "site specific muscle growth". But after all the bunk settled i believe it was determined to be a matter of sub-cutaneous water retention.
  But heres another idea......in todays r&d it may not be too out-of-the-question for scientists to alter ones DNA for site specific results.  Hmmmmm


----------



## gopro (Jul 17, 2003)

Personally I DO see where one day we may reach a point that site specific supplementation is possible, but I think it would be a drug, with a medical delivery system that might make it happen, and NOT an over the counter supplement.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by BeerHunter *_
> But heres another idea......in todays r&d it may not be too out-of-the-question for scientists to alter ones DNA for site specific results. Hmmmmm



I've already posted on that, but thats different than dropping a pill and getting bigger arms.

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18656


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Prince, I really appreciate all of your helpful input in this thread.  Thanks.



Now, if the pot is through calling the kettle black......

So,*what's the answer*? We've hit on everything from adipose to the common cold, and we've yet to answer the question.


----------



## gopro (Jul 18, 2003)

Avant Labs is...(drumroll please)...


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

Mag 14 was released last night:

http://magazine.mindandmuscle.net/

Go to current issue, table of contents and read:

Sytenhance.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 18, 2003)

So, what is in it that makes it work locally?


----------



## gopro (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Mag 14 was released last night:
> 
> http://magazine.mindandmuscle.net/
> ...



Ahhhh...and there is the punchline, just as I thought. What is the science behind it??


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

Same as Ab-Solved, and Lipoderm, essentially.


----------



## gopro (Jul 18, 2003)

Well, since its still up for debate whether steroids injected directly into the muscle can cause localized growth, I have doubts as to whether a topical "not-as-strong-as-a-real-steroid" can accomplish this. Nice thought though.

And how will this differ from the topical prohormones Avant recently removed from sale?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

First, there has been excellent user feedback already.

Second, it is has a very different mechanism, with very different effects on the body (i.e. it is not, obviously, system, and not intended to enter the bloodsystem etc.)

Third, this is not an Avant Labs product, but a product by Xtreme Formulations, the makes of ICE, Vendetta, and Relentless.  (Also a sister company of proteincustomizer.com).


----------



## gopro (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> First, there has been excellent user feedback already.
> 
> Second, it is has a very different mechanism, with very different effects on the body (i.e. it is not, obviously, system, and not intended to enter the bloodsystem etc.)
> ...



That would make this stuff as revolutionary as ANY drug on the market. Hard to believe. Would love to try it myself.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

I am telling you, there is some very good feedback already.

I tried it myself, for two weeks, results were decent, but not as good as some others.


----------



## gopro (Jul 18, 2003)

What did YOU experience, and what have others said?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

My results:


*Date.....BW....R. Arm...L. Arm....L. Calf....R. Calf *
6/2??????220....17 7/8??????.18...........16 ¼???..16 ¾ 
6/9??????220???.17 7/8??????.18??????...16 ¼ ???..17
6/16..???216.5???18??????.18 1/4??????.16 ½ ???..17

Everything stayed the same the first week, except my right calf -- which was the only area I WAS NOT applying gel #3.  So I am pretty certain that I just mis-taped it to start.  I had never taped calves before.

As to the arms, I tape them every week, before and since, so I know my measurements were accurate.

I'll hunt down some feedback from others.

BTW, the weight loss was because I was dieting at the time, which makes the increases all the more impressive, IMO.


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 18, 2003)

Looks like pretty consistent results.

Did you change anything in your w/o routine during this period?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

Other quotes:

- I used this with 3grms of 1-T, and in a 14day period saw a 3/4" increase in upper arm girth.

- 6/6 My experience with Gel #3 thus far: I have 6g of 1-t dissolved in 120ml. Dosing is 3 squirts 2x per day, for a total of 200mg of 1-test per day. Every application is ~1-1/2 squirts to each upper arm. Today was the 16th day that I have applied the gel. The bottle will last ~30 days at this dosage level.

I???m getting more complete coverage of the bicep than the tricep, as I???m using a full squirt for each bicep and about ½ squirt for each tricep. Note that IMO, 2 squirts per upper arm (per application) would be just about right for complete coverage of the entire upper arm, while still spreading the gel in a very thin layer.

Initial observations: I didn???t notice much of anything the first few days. After applying the 5th day, I noted a fuller muscle appearance, particularly in the bicep. Also started to experience increased recovery in-between sets (during the workout) and less soreness after the workout at this point. I took an arm measurement at the one-week point, and it was an increase of just under ¼??? for each arm. 

I took another arm measurement at the two-week point, which was 2 days ago, and the increase is right at 3/8??? in each arm. Also started to experience some strength increases during workouts the last two days. A bit more in the bicep exercises than the tricep exercises, as I???m getting more complete coverage of the bicep with each gel application.

I have experienced increased muscle pumps in both upper arms during this 2nd week, again more so on biceps than triceps. Pumps haven???t been the greatest I???ve ever seen on-cycle (i.e. the ???painful??? variety), but the increase is definite during arm workouts.

Other items of note: My weight has been stable over the 16 days, as I am eating at a maintenance level. No significant changes in other bodily measurements and no change in BF levels, using a basic 3-site caliper check each week. No noticeable strength or recovery increases, or decrease in soreness in any other muscle groups than arms. My workouts have not changed during the Gel #3 cycle; I have purposely not increased volume on any arm exercises, though I feel I easily could have, as recovery in-between sets is definitely up, particularly on bicep movements.

I have experienced no systemic side effects so far. i.e. No lethargy or workout fatigue that is typical with 1-test only dosing. No increase in blood pressure. No decrease in libido, and no testicular shrinkage. No increase in acne and no negative effect on hairline. One side effect I have started to experience is slight joint pain in the area of application (i.e. upper elbow area). This began 2 days ago during my workout, about the same time I started to notice some strength increases. It is pretty slight so far, compared to some other androgen cycles I have done, and it only lasted for the remainder of the workout and a little while afterwards. No joint pain anywhere else thus far.

I will try to chime in again with any additional observations in ~2 weeks, after the bottle of Gel #3 is completed. 

- Same guy 6/24 -- My last dosing with Gel #3 was on Friday night, so today will be the 4th day since I have applied. Total dosing was 6g of 1-test in 30 days, with coverage on both upper arms. Final results: I took an arm measurement last night before my work-out, and the increase was right at a 1/2" for each arm.

Other observations are as described above. No systemic effects or side effects (other than joint pain in the elbows). Weight is the same today as it was a month ago, as is BF%. Strength increases on arm exercises kicked in during the last 2 weeks. Bicep movements in particular have been as heavy or heavier than they've ever been. The best (most noticeable) effect I experienced was the increase in recovery in-between sets (on arm movements) and decreased soreness. Arms are basically ready to go again with minimal rest, even after a heavy set to failure. And soreness is virtually non-existent. My arms just did not get sore during/after a workout in the last ~3 weeks of Gel #3 applications.

Since I haven't experienced anything really negative, I'm very tempted to stay on Gel #3 for another month, to see if strength/size gains continue. But I decided to go off-cycle for now, as I have a few other things in the works. I will not be doing a traditional post-androgen cycle. I'll probably try this again in the near future and possibly extend to an 8-week cycle. 

I am sure there is more, if I find it I'll post it.


----------



## bludevil (Jul 18, 2003)

I just visited their website (Xtreme Formulations) and didn't see the product. Where's some info where I can read up on it.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by DaMayor *_
> Looks like pretty consistent results.
> 
> Did you change anything in your w/o routine during this period?



Neither my training or diet.  The only thing different was that I was coming off of a regular prohormone cycle, so actually, I expected to lose some size.  Add on top of that the weight loss, and well, you can see where I am going with this.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by bludevil *_
> I just visited their website (Xtreme Formulations) and didn't see the product. Where's some info where I can read up on it.



I believe they are ordering the ingredients and developing the label and bottles and such now.  I'd expect it to be out in 4-6 weeks.


----------



## gopro (Jul 18, 2003)

What is the active androgen in this product?


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Neither my training or diet.  The only thing different was that I was coming off of a regular prohormone cycle, so actually, I expected to lose some size.  Add on top of that the weight loss, and well, you can see where I am going with this.




Yes, I does.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> What is the active androgen in this product?



To date, people have been selecting their own actives and doses.  I believe those guys used 1-test and maybe 4-diol.

I used half 1-test and half 3-alpha.


----------



## gopro (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> To date, people have been selecting their own actives and doses.  I believe those guys used 1-test and maybe 4-diol.
> 
> I used half 1-test and half 3-alpha.



So when the product comes out, will it be pre-prepared with an active androgen, or is this gel just a system to get an ingredient that the user adds, to the muscle?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> So when the product comes out, will it be pre-prepared with an active androgen, or is this gel just a system to get an ingredient that the user adds, to the muscle?



Xtreme will be selling a finished product (or two) with androgens.  Certainly 1-test, maybe more.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 18, 2003)

Hmm, even topical Fina gets bad press from everywhere I've seen. I'll read the article tho.

Well, that was brief... unfortunately I can't say I have learned anything or seen anything to convince anybody that it works, site injections dont work with near anything, so why is this any different?

I can only say I wish there was some science in the snipet to read, although its nice to know what products may be coming out in the future, of course it will leave companies open to harsh criticism for pumping things up - especially when there is no discovery or science claim to talk about.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Mudge *_
> Hmm, even topical Fina gets bad press from everywhere I've seen. I'll read the article tho.
> 
> Well, that was brief... unfortunately I can't say I have learned anything or seen anything to convince anybody that it works, site injections dont work with near anything, so why is this any different?
> ...



There is plenty of science behind it, and there will be a write up.

As well, there is plenty of anecdotal feedback.  See above.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 18, 2003)

Aye, I saw that, just await the science


----------



## Rodrugg (Jul 18, 2003)

My uncle Stanley's left leg is twice as big as his right leg. He takes cement blocks and puts them on his right foot and kicks them as far as he can. One time he kicked one right on top of my grandma's car and she went NUTS. Now she will not let him touch cement blocks when he comes over and has to sit on his hands in the dining room. He also rubs a special cream on his left leg to make it smaller and refuses to use his left leg to do anything. He says it's starting to work.


----------



## DaMayor (Jul 18, 2003)




----------



## DaMayor (Jul 18, 2003)

You're from South Carolina, aren't you.


----------



## Mudge (Jul 19, 2003)

> *Melatonin released by the pineal gland acts on the pituitary gland, the "master gland" of the body's hormonal system. It stimulates or suppresses the release of a number of hormones that affect growth, metabolism and reproductive cycles, including growth hormone, estrogen, and testosterone.*



Secrets of Serotonin - Carol Hart
ISBN: 0-312-96087-5

Obviously doesn't explain how the body selects where things go (pathway wise), or to what degrees etc, hmm.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 21, 2003)

this is very interesting, but I am very skeptical.

is there any "science" available on the web now for this new product?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 21, 2003)

I do not believe there is any science available, no.

I was skeptical too.


----------



## gopro (Jul 21, 2003)

I was speaking to a few people about this product and the consensus is that even if it is effective, which is just might be, it will be pulled quickly from the market as a mislabeled and unapproved drug.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 21, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> I was speaking to a few people about this product and the consensus is that even if it is effective, which is just might be, it will be pulled quickly from the market as a mislabeled and unapproved drug.



Really?  Why?  And how is it any different from liposomal delivery, in terms of the law, should you cite it?


----------



## gopro (Jul 21, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Really?  Why?  And how is it any different from liposomal delivery, in terms of the law, should you cite it?



Not sure really, although I can try and find out. However, isn't this the reason that Avant had to pull their topicals, as well as companies like Euthenics?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 21, 2003)

I don't know the company of which you speak.

As to Avant, its something I can't really discuss.  Though this is different for a variety of reasons.


----------



## gopro (Jul 22, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> I don't know the company of which you speak.
> 
> As to Avant, its something I can't really discuss.  Though this is different for a variety of reasons.



Euthenics had put out a whole line of transdermal PHs. They worked great but were quickly shut down. Well, you are a lawyer so you know more about the "legalities" than me...so, I guess we'll just have to see.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 22, 2003)

If you look on USFA's website and read the latest update, it has one congressman or senator(?) stating his stance toward the PH bill. He basically says if it works, ban it!!!!


----------



## ZECH (Jul 22, 2003)

Here is the link I was referring to!
http://www.usfa.biz/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=41


----------



## gopro (Jul 22, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> If you look on USFA's website and read the latest update, it has one congressman or senator(?) stating his stance toward the PH bill. He basically says if it works, ban it!!!!



How about..."if it works...leave us the fu%k alone and let us do what we want you prick!"


----------



## Mudge (Jul 22, 2003)

What is this stuff I hear about PH use killing 9 year old girls


----------



## Tkarrde (Jul 23, 2003)

I'm coming into this discussion rather late, and I dont pretend that I'm not going to be perceived as biased given that I am an Avant employee.

Nonetheless, I can personally testify to the product in question's efficacy.

We are talking a 3/4" increase in upper arm girth over a 14day period, with no apparent signs of systematic absorption.

Placebo?...You decide


----------



## Arnold (Jul 23, 2003)

Tkarrde, can/will you explain some of the science behind it?


----------



## gr81 (Jul 23, 2003)

sounds like some BS to me. I would also like to see some science surrounding this product.


----------



## Arnold (Jul 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> If you look on USFA's website and read the latest update, it has one congressman or senator(?) stating his stance toward the PH bill. He basically says if it works, ban it!!!!



what a fucking genius.


----------



## Tkarrde (Jul 23, 2003)

For legal reasons I am not at liberty to discuss certain aspects of this product. Now, this probably sounds like a cop-out, which I dont mean for it to.

What, specifically, do you want to know about the science??? Depending on the nature of what you're looking for, I may be able to give an answer...

Here is some initial feedback--both good and bad--for your perusal...

http://forum.avantlabs.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=4142&hl=gel+3&


----------



## Arnold (Jul 23, 2003)

Mainly the active ingrediants and how they could possibly cause localized muscle growth.


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 24, 2003)

Androgens work locally by there very nature -- in otherwords at the cellular level.

It is just that normally they are dispersed through the bloodsteam, i.e. systemically.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 24, 2003)

You're saying they work both localized and systemically??


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 24, 2003)

I am saying they work at the cellular level.  The means of administration will effect whether they are working locally or systemically.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 24, 2003)

I follow you! But I would think that even locally at the cellular level, that it would be in the bloodstream, meaning it would be systemic?


----------



## Twin Peak (Jul 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> I follow you! But I would think that even locally at the cellular level, that it would be in the bloodstream, meaning it would be systemic?



The gel used avoids (largely systemic distribution) much the same way Lipoderm and Ab-Solved gels avoid it.

Probably though you are getting some systemic distribution, though not sufficient to supress endogenous hormones (unless of course you used ridiculously high amounts -- i.e. covered your whole body in it).

Again, the proof is in the puddin' and more than just Justin and have have played with this.


----------



## Par Deus (Jul 24, 2003)

I am going to do a write-up, on the science/theory in the next couple weeks, but the jist of it is as follows:

Androgens exert much of their effects locally, at the cell level, be it in muscle, fat, the brain, liver, etc. They are taken up by the cells in those tissues, they bind to the AR in those cells, and subsequently activate transcription, thus protein synthesis, glycogen storage, etc., in those cells. 

IOW, high androgen concentrations (and binding), in a cell in the muscle, does not activate transcription in the hypothalamus

That is pretty straightforward, but it tells us that if we could get high concentrations in one tissue over the other, we could achieve a stronger effect in that tissue over the other (all else being equal)

As to getting higher concentrations in one versus the other, that is all about delivery, and I would point to LipoDerm in support of that -- both the science I presented in my write-up (which showed much higher ratio of active in muscle compared to systemic vs. oral or another topical) as well as anecdotal evidence (people who can't take 10mg, orally, who can do 200mg/day dosing for weeks at a time (meaning it is not just a time-release thing, because levels would build-up). 

The mechanism for local delivery is the same in both products, what differs is the additives for increasing total delivery, because of the different physical properties of the active (lipophillic vs. hydrophillic), which changes the rate limiting step for total flux (particularly in the real world, where one showers)

As to adipose vs. fat -- i.e. that they are different tissues, so the pharmacokinetics might be different (I assume this is your concern, as you did not specify) -- the main difference is blood flow, which means the active is more likely to be taken up, in the muscle, than the fat -- and this is reflected by lower concentrations in the muscle vs. adipose -- but, as mentioned, the ratio and total concentration in muscle vs. systemic, was still much higher than vs. oral or a different delivery vehicle.

Androgens are metabolized locally, in all of these same tissue I mentioned earlier -- both Phase I and Phase II metabolism takes place, thus by the time the steroids are taken up by the blood, and delivered systemic, most of it has been metabolised to inactive compounds, which would be excreted, thus it would not activate negative feedback in the hypothalamus and testes.

As a bit of an aside, androgen are also quite lipolytic in SubQ fat, so might see some localized fat loss as well.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 24, 2003)

Welcome C!!


----------



## Mudge (Jul 24, 2003)

> there is some indication that 3-Alpha is quite potent in these regards, however it has resulted in, what Par called "scary hair growth" at application site.



 interestin'


----------



## gopro (Jul 24, 2003)

I'd be willing to give it a shot. The science sounds good, but means nothing unless it can prove itself in the real world. I would have to "see" it for myself.


----------



## Par Deus (Jul 29, 2003)

We make a habit of our science translating into real world results 

As mentioned, several who made a homebrew have given very good feedback, but we are also going to get some testing going on a few boards, soon -- just waiting on production of samples from the people we sold the formula to.


----------



## gopro (Jul 29, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Par Deus *_
> We make a habit of our science translating into real world results
> 
> As mentioned, several who made a homebrew have given very good feedback, but we are also going to get some testing going on a few boards, soon -- just waiting on production of samples from the people we sold the formula to.



Excellent habit to be in!! I just find the idea of an OTC product doing something similar to site injecting steroids or prostaglandins to be rather, um, sensational...But I'm not saying you are lying, or putting out a bogus product...I await more feedback and would love to try this myself! My calves have always lagged NO MATTER WHAT I DO! If this stuff can help them improve I would be a big advocate of the stuff.


----------



## XtremeFormula (Sep 23, 2003)

Sytenhance is now available, will be on my website by tonight.


----------



## Twin Peak (Sep 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by XtremeFormula *_
> Sytenhance is now available, will be on my website by tonight.



Cool, you finally made it over hear.  And found this thread....how convenient.


----------



## Triple Threat (Sep 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by XtremeFormula *_
> will be on my website by tonight.



And the name of this website would be ????


----------



## XtremeFormula (Sep 23, 2003)

www.xtremeformulations.com


----------



## Twin Peak (Sep 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by CaptainDeadlift *_
> And the name of this website would be ????



LOL.

Xtremeformulations.com.

I am trying to convince Dave to offer to the good members of IM a tester for this product.

Anyone interested?


----------



## XtremeFormula (Sep 23, 2003)

the product testers wanted is on its own thread, I look forward to hearing from you


----------

