It sounds like this product works best on visceral fat rather than subcutaneous fat. Why does it work better on this type of fat when applied locally when the subcutaneous fat lies closer to the tissue that the spray is being applied to? I understand that the subcutaneous fat has its own seperate blood supply, but so does the visceral fat doesn’t it since it lies deeper yet?
Also how is dermal fat and subcutaneous fat different?
I appreciate your response![/quote]
I want to bump this in case it was missed. Thanks.
Dermal fat is that still within the dermis. Subcutaneous fat is beneath the dermis.
Using a quote from another website ( Procter & Gamble ) that I believe – I don’t know the limit – is brief enough for attribution without violating copyright, this is a very good explanation:
The skin is made up of three distinct layers.
The top layer is called the epidermis.
The epidermis is translucent. That is, it allows light to pass partially through it, rather as frosted glass does. Then epidermis does not contain any blood vessels but gets its oxygen and nutrients from the deeper layers of the skin.
At the bottom of the epidermis is a very thin membrane, called the basement membrane, which attaches the epidermis firmly, though not rigidly, to the layer below.
The second layer lies deeper and is called the dermis. It contains blood vessels, nerves, hair roots and sweat glands.
Below the dermis lies a layer of fat, the subcutaneous fat. The depth of this layer differs from one person to another. It contains larger blood vessels and nerves, and is made up of clumps of fat-filled cells called adipose cells.
The subcutaneous fat lies on the muscles and bones, to which the whole skin structure is attached by connective tissues. The attachment is quite loose, so the skin can move fairly freely.
I would add to that that, though not mentioned in that text, the dermis does contain fat cells also.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It was missed – good call.
Dermal fat is that still within the dermis. Subcutaneous fat is beneath the dermis.
Using a quote from another website that I believe – I don’t know the limit – is brief enough for attribution without violating copyright, this is a very good explanation:
The skin is made up of three distinct layers.
The top layer is called the epidermis.
The epidermis is translucent. That is, it allows light to pass partially through it, rather as frosted glass does. Then epidermis does not contain any blood vessels but gets its oxygen and nutrients from the deeper layers of the skin.
At the bottom of the epidermis is a very thin membrane, called the basement membrane, which attaches the epidermis firmly, though not rigidly, to the layer below.
The second layer lies deeper and is called the dermis. It contains blood vessels, nerves, hair roots and sweat glands.
Below the dermis lies a layer of fat, the subcutaneous fat. The depth of this layer differs from one person to another. It contains larger blood vessels and nerves, and is made up of clumps of fat-filled cells called adipose cells.
The subcutaneous fat lies on the muscles and bones, to which the whole skin structure is attached by connective tissues. The attachment is quite loose, so the skin can move fairly freely.
I would add to that that, though not mentioned in that text, the dermis does contain fat cells also. Procter & Gamble )[/quote]
Thanks for the response! Why is it then that this product, especially since the mode of application is sprayed on the skin, works better at getting rid of visceral fat than subcutaneous fat when the visceral fat lies deeper yet?
Because subcutaneous fat and visceral fat both receive blood straight from the arteries from the heart, so there is probably about no difference in levels of 11-T they are exposed to, and visceral fat is especially strongly affected by the actions of 11b-HSD and cortisol. The blood levels are plenty sufficient.
It’s not that there is no effect on sub-Q, there is a good effect, just more effect it seems on visceral.
update comparison is found near the bottom of page 3
Not bad!
Looks like you gained 5.5 lb muscle and lost 3.5 lb fat in just 2 weeks.
I wonder what your gains would have been if you bumped up your protein and carb intake over this period.[/quote]
Last I calculated (a while ago mind you), I was getting 300g of protein at 170lbs and was I would guess 450g of carbs Not sure how much more I could increase either too see much gain in a short amount of time
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Last I calculated (a while ago mind you), I was getting 300g of protein at 170lbs and was I would guess 450g of carbs Not sure how much more I could increase either too see much gain in a short amount of time
[/quote]
I’m not sure how it pertains to 11-T, but it’s not uncommon to go as high as 2 grams protein per pound of bodyweight while using androgens.
The short version is I gained 4 pounds, none of which went on my waist, lost some fat around the chest and upper abs, and gained 1/4" on my arms. I give 11-T a thumbs up.
At the minimum I would wait one week. Long-term, one week without any post-cycle therapy is not long enough, as more time (2 weeks) is being spent with presumably-low LH than is being spent with normal LH (1 week) and therefore gradual testicular atrophy can be expected.
But a single time of doing that, it won’t show up.
Also at the minimum one should be sure that they, judging by feel, seem to have their natural T back before starting again. Actually that should happen very promptly after having been on for only 2 weeks; in fact it may well be fully back the first day back “off.”
Another advantage of allowing 2 weeks time is that it gives the body more time to be ready for a burst of improvement; and/or if dieting down is involved, it allows another week of progress in that regard.
It’s available to me currently…according to the store…I can take it all the way to checkout, but I am not planning on buying any so obviously I won’t check out with it.
Is there some type of malfunction going on with the store?
[quote]orion wrote:
If 11-T can be used to attack visceral fat would there be any benefits from combining it with HRX or would that be a stupid idea for some reason?
[/quote]
Not at all. A perfectly good plan, with nothing against it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
If 11-T can be used to attack visceral fat would there be any benefits from combining it with HRX or would that be a stupid idea for some reason?
Not at all. A perfectly good plan, with nothing against it.
Bill- Earlier you mentioned that 11-T has weak androgenic effects. Would you expect 11-T to have greater androgenic effects than Alpha Male? Or would both products be pretty much equal since neither involve supramaximal exogenous T?
