I have 2 bottles that I never used…this thread is swaying me to pull out the bottles and give it a shot!
anything else I am missing?
im thinking :
workout in the morning
shower at home after getting back from the gym
apply about 10 minutes after showering
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
NewDamage wrote:
God. Damnit. 
you liked it too? Never heard your feedback on it, care to share?[/quote]
Got some decent strength gains while on which I felt were better than when not on it. No real improvement in body composition but I was eating a lot. I also felt great on it, and really liked the idea of its mechanism of action.
Cost/benefit ratio, however, was unfavorable for me to do more than a few cycles, and felt that it was too expensive to justify the results for most peoples on a limited income, but for those with more disposable income I’d recommend it. And I wish I could buy more in the future.
Sadness.
[quote]mtotry wrote:
I have 2 bottles that I never used…this thread is swaying me to pull out the bottles and give it a shot!
anything else I am missing?
im thinking :
workout in the morning
shower at home after getting back from the gym
apply about 10 minutes after showering
[/quote]
The standard application is 35 sprays at a time. 2x/day gives more rapid results at the time, but with only limited supply, it may be and probably is the case that total effect would be greater if using only 1x/day – or applying 17-18 sprays 2x/day which probably would be better than 35 sprays 1x/day – for twice as many weeks as would be possible with the heavier dosage.
[quote]Wise Guy wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I do know that in pharmaceutical science at the time, the focus in general was formulating for maximum delivery into smallest possible skin area even where skin metabolism was no issue; and I never once saw an effort towards allowing much larger area and much less transport per unit area (flux) on account of being less obtrusive after application. Maximizing flux was the Holy Grail and that was just that.
There are often weird things like that. For example, I am pretty sure you will find medicinal chemistry texts and most certainly medicinal chemistry professors and lecturers who will say that the principal thing, or I even once read, the DEFINITION of medicinal chemistry was increasing potency.
(Meaning, effect per milligram.)
Now that’s just flat stupid.
If derivative B requires three times the milligrams for same effect, but has less side effects at therapeutically-equivalent doses, a more suitable half-life, and is cheaper to manufacturer, then it’s better regardless that it is less potent.
Yet you could find literally thousands of articles in medicinal chemistry where potency is sought as the Holy Grail.
Sidetrack, but not unrelated.
Excellent points.
I have a feeling Big Pharma was simply looking out for layman, everyday user convenience - I.E. the more potent, less amount of gel/cream applied, therefor will have a higher user acceptability ratio, therefore more sales.
I don’t think they were necessarily concerned about things pharmacological speaking, just looking to get a higher user rate. [/quote]
There’s also the consideration that coming up with the Androsol method required information which came from outside of pharmaceutical science.
Simply having a solid on the skin at any ordinarily-conceived amount per unit area would give terribly poor results. It isn’t at all obvious that yet thinner application would be better. Summing the results of each area would seem to give no better outcome.
It was research in environmental toxicology that showed differently. Dr Annette Bunge of the Colorado School of Mines found that absorption of toxins from contaminated soil, due to exposure of skin to that soil, was at a rate well beyond what would ordinarily be predicted.
Her research showed that this was due to rate of lateral (across the top of the skin, rather than through) diffusion being far greater than the rate of transdermal diffusion. So much so, that a microscopic fleck on the skin, where flecks covered only a fraction of any given area, delivered compound through the skin as if it covered much more area than was in fact the case.
Fortunately I met Dr Bunge, due to her being a close colleague of my professor, and learned this.
I am sad to hear we cannot buy 11-T anymore, I was really looking forward to getting some. I know when these products are released, the Companies want consumers to “jump” right on them, but I usually take a more wait and see approach, which is not beneficial for keeping these types of products around.
I remember Androsol, it was an awesome product, and I used to stack it with 1-AD, and my strength gains were tremendous. I would imagine that if 11-T has been discontinued, the government has something to do with it. I also remember when Anaconda was first mentioned, it was going to be this awesome muscle builder, and since the government crackdown on anything stronger than milk and eggs, it is a disappointment to see where all this is heading, because what you get from most of these “allow you to workout for hours” supplements, I can simply get from a cup of hot coffee. just my 2 cents…
Question for Bill Roberts,
I learned I can purchase capsules of 11 ketotestosterone on line. How effective is this compared to the Biotest 11-T? Would you have any idea of the bioavalilabiltiy rate of the capsules comapared to the spary, for example how many milligrams in capsule form would you have to ingest to get the same results or levels as the spray?
Also what are your thoughts on making my own transdermal out of the capules? Would I just mix same amount of grams of the capsule form in the same amount of transdermal solution equivalent to the amounts contained in the Biotest 11 T? Thanks.
Not from blood tests but from estimation, at least twice as much.
Yes, you could dissolve in 91% isopropyl alcohol and get a probably-satisfactory result. As a guess I’d try for 25 mg/mL (the water content will reduce solubility somewhat.)
You will want a sprayer that gives a reasonably fine mist.
Having the 9% water in there isn’t optimal, and you won’t have the penetration enhancer, but I’d still expect it to be considerably better (or rather more efficient) than oral.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not from blood tests but from estimation, at least twice as much.
Yes, you could dissolve in 91% isopropyl alcohol and get a probably-satisfactory result. As a guess I’d try for 25 mg/mL (the water content will reduce solubility somewhat.)
You will want a sprayer that gives a reasonably fine mist.
Having the 9% water in there isn’t optimal, and you won’t have the penetration enhancer, but I’d still expect it to be considerably better (or rather more efficient) than oral.[/quote]
Thanks so much for your help. Since I reaaly liked the stuff and Biotest doesn’t sell it anymore I guess I have no choice but to try this alternative.