My syntherol results - with pics!

[jayuk]

No I usually just go around making stupid comments.

I am biting the hell out of my tongue right now...

As far as I recall - this was done on rats. As far as I know - the closest we are to them are when we are termed Gym Rats

Again - have you got anything that was done on Humans?

Using rat data [if you are] to justify this is short of absurd.

Another reason why data such as this which supplement companies use to push products and the lesser intellectually aware people then go on to quote - just shows how silly some things can get.

 

[DatBtrue]

As far as I recall - this was done on rats. As far as I know - the closest we are to them are when we are termed Gym Rats

Again - have you got anything that was done on Humans?

They were Mammalian cells.

Using rat data [if you are] to justify this is short of absurd.

Another reason why data such as this which supplement companies use to push products and the lesser intellectually aware people then go on to quote - just shows how silly some things can get.

No need to continue bro. I understand the insult...

 

[jayuk]

They were Mammalian cells.



No need to continue bro. I understand the insult...

I figured you may say that but it still doesnt answer the question - so let me elaborate

As ive done a fair bit of research and none of it was conclusive let alone it being done on rats - which was the mainstay of the plugging that everyone is using for this; so I am keen to understand where you get our authortarian angle from

You say they were Mammalian cells -which part of the study are you referring to?

I see this

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27619&d=1244023307

Now the mainstay of your argument can be summarised in this heading

Why site injection of Caprylic Acid works (In addition to increasing fascia pliability).


In the words of the study * sited below caprylic acid is a synergistic augmenter of hormone-dependent receptor activity. The study examined a bark known as E. ulmoides and often called Gutta Percha Tree, Rubber Bark Tree and Du-Zhong. However the study also broke the bark into its components and determined caprylic acid was the basis for their results. In unpublished data shared with me the authors demonstrate that caprylic acid by itself was solely responsible for the synergistic results I will describe.

What they discovered is that the bark or caprylic acid by itself demonstrated androgenic activities by weakly activating Androgen Receptor (AR) in a dose-dependent manner. The scale that is used to measure androgenic activity is such that a saturation dose of the androgen receptor's native ligand (testosterone) will produce a 100 fold Luciferase assay (LUC) activity. Caprylic acid at 50ng/ml produced a 6.4 fold LUC activity.

Now was the study above done on Rats ? As this is the crux of the argument/debate that SEO/CA works well on site AR.

 

[DatBtrue]

Now was the study above done on Rats ? As this is the crux of the argument/debate that SEO/CA works well on site AR.[/COLOR]

I'm not interested in having a conversation with you.

I answered your question about what cell line was used. I have zero interest in clarifying to you that the techniques used in analyzing AndrogenReceptor-mediated reporter gene activity involve recombinant DNA constructs and that those techniques were undertaken in a mammalian line of cells. The technique is not uncommon and can be used to determine gene expression mediated by any receptor involving any ligand. It is a standard, very sensitive well accepted methodology.

Hormone potentiating effects have been identified with phytoestrogens & estrogen receptors and in addition to this study at least one other compound has been shown to have hormone potentiating effects in androgen receptors, called phytoandrogenic activity.

The understanding of how what is known as triterpenoids or short-chain lipids bind to receptors is not novel and synergy between receptors, native ligands and either peptides or in this case short-chain lipids has been demonstrated before w/ other receptors and ligands.

The fact that in addition to the most important part of the study (i.e. the molecular biology part) they also undertook to carry out an in vivo study in an animal and use prostate weight as an indicator of such synergy compared to controls & androgen ligand only is an aside.

These in vivo results in their rat models is not novel as well. It has been established and documented in farm animals that the use of MCT in feedstock increased growth rate and size of cattle (beyond the upper limit attained with their normal antibiotic & hormone protocol).

Dr. Ong is well respected and I appreciated him sharing his data on which fractionated components of the compound proved to be successful in augmenting androgen receptor activity. Looking at that data it is clear to me that the structure of the the short-chain lipid (in this case octonate) is responsible and that similar constructs either natural or man made will be equally effective.

It is enough for me that the cattle industry believes they can save money with MCT.

It is also enough for me that Dr. Ong concluded his study by saying:

"The novel discoveries reported in this study add phytoandrogens and lipidic augmenters to the emerging list of hormomimetics (such as phytoestrogens) known to exist in plants. Pharmaceutical utility of lipidic augmenters in the treatment of hypogonadal conditions such as menopause or andropause could be exploited based on this mechanism of tripartite synergism."​

It is enough for me because I have undertaken many experiments of my own in humans and I don't need sensitive equipment to witness change.

No need to further respond because I've said what I'm going to say and you have said what you are going to say.

 

[jayuk]

I'm not interested in having a conversation with you.

Lol - excellent.

I answered your question about what cell line was used. I have zero interest in clarifying to you that the techniques used in analyzing AndrogenReceptor-mediated reporter gene activity involve recombinant DNA constructs and that those techniques were undertaken in a mammalian line of cells. The technique is not uncommon and can be used to determine gene expression mediated by any receptor involving any ligand. It is a standard, very sensitive well accepted methodology.

Lets stick with fundamentals. Cell Line? Please. Lets not try and over analyse and stick with core principle. Gene Expression, uptake, down regulation, and pathway reactions are totally different in rats and humans. If you didnt know this - than maybe it would be worth researching a little more. As an example - over 50,000 tests have been done on cancer [as an example] cells in rats - when trialled in humans they have meant nothing - which is now why this area of resolution use live human cancer cells.

Hormone potentiating effects have been identified with phytoestrogens & estrogen receptors and in addition to this study at least one other compound has been shown to have hormone potentiating effects in androgen receptors, called phytoandrogenic activity.

Agree - but it was a pointless statement to make.

The understanding of how what is known as triterpenoids or short-chain lipids bind to receptors is not novel and synergy between receptors, native ligands and either peptides or in this case short-chain lipids has been demonstrated before w/ other receptors and ligands.

as above

The fact that in addition to the most important part of the study (i.e. the molecular biology part) they also undertook to carry out an in vivo study in an animal and use prostate weight as an indicator of such synergy compared to controls & androgen ligand only is an aside.

LOL - to even make that statement is scary; bearing in mind the incorrect conclusions were based on this part of the experiement/study

These in vivo results in their rat models is not novel as well. It has been established and documented in farm animals that the use of MCT in feedstock increased growth rate and size of cattle (beyond the upper limit attained with their normal antibiotic & hormone protocol).

So? again - we are not Rats. It means nothing unless proven in humans - how can you not understand this?

Dr. Ong is well respected and I appreciated him sharing his data on which fractionated components of the compound proved to be successful in augmenting androgen receptor activity. Looking at that data it is clear to me that the structure of the the short-chain lipid (in this case octonate) is responsible and that similar constructs either natural or man made will be equally effective.

in humans?

It is enough for me that the cattle industry believes they can save money with MCT.

It is also enough for me that Dr. Ong concluded his study by saying:

"The novel discoveries reported in this study add phytoandrogens and lipidic augmenters to the emerging list of hormomimetics (such as phytoestrogens) known to exist in plants. Pharmaceutical utility of lipidic augmenters in the treatment of hypogonadal conditions such as menopause or andropause could be exploited based on this mechanism of tripartite synergism."​

It is enough for me because I have undertaken many experiments of my own in humans and I don't need sensitive equipment to witness change.

Means very little to the argument which I see you have a tendency of diluting.

No need to further respond because I've said what I'm going to say and you have said what you are going to say.

Well if you are making statements which are CLEARLY wrong - you got to expect people to pull you up on it.

So are we clear that you dont have anything on Humans Studies?

I could probably go on and on as to why it may not translate to Humans but its pointless if you feel rat studies are a premise to go injecting oil into biceps.

I must stress - I have nothing against you at all - I dont know you so if I have come across a little harsh - my sincere apologies. But I do hope you can see where I am coming from.

The crux of this issue in this post is that a person with 16 ot 17 inch biceps [through the fat] needs to WORK HARD not use some oil to get another inch. What happened to the hard work ethic? I can somehow understand how a Pro on stage would use it - but everyday people with average sized arms?

It is a sad day when we all start saying "well done!" to this kind of activity. What should be said is - What the fuck! You have 16 or 17 inch biceps [through the fat] - pull your finger out, get under the compound movements and get working hard!! Noone has an excuse using this shit till they get to a decent size.

I am sorry if this offends anyone on here - but this is an example of the old school "brotha" mentality of the boards back in the 1998-2002 period. Someone does somehting silly and everyone says "well done" rather than putting him straight.

Work Hard - Eat, and push the weight! Noone had 16 inch arms or whatever deadlifting 280kg and Shoulder Pressing 150kg. Work your way up to it and show some goddamn work ethic!

PS - This is a general rant and not directly at the OP - its just more and more people seem to be throwing this shit in them without the hard work to get where they need to

 

[mrshoulders]

Lol - excellent.



Lets stick with fundamentals. Cell Line? Please. Lets not try and over analyse and stick with core principle. Gene Expression, uptake, down regulation, and pathway reactions are totally different in rats and humans. If you didnt know this - than maybe it would be worth researching a little more. As an example - over 50,000 tests have been done on cancer [as an example] cells in rats - when trialled in humans they have meant nothing - which is now why this area of resolution use live human cancer cells.



Agree - but it was a pointless statement to make.


as above



LOL - to even make that statement is scary; bearing in mind the incorrect conclusions were based on this part of the experiement/study



So? again - we are not Rats. It means nothing unless proven in humans - how can you not understand this?



in humans?



Means very little to the argument which I see you have a tendency of diluting.



Well if you are making statements which are CLEARLY wrong - you got to expect people to pull you up on it.

So are we clear that you dont have anything on Humans Studies?

I could probably go on and on as to why it may not translate to Humans but its pointless if you feel rat studies are a premise to go injecting oil into biceps.

I must stress - I have nothing against you at all - I dont know you so if I have come across a little harsh - my sincere apologies. But I do hope you can see where I am coming from.

The crux of this issue in this post is that a person with 16 ot 17 inch biceps [through the fat] needs to WORK HARD not use some oil to get another inch. What happened to the hard work ethic? I can somehow understand how a Pro on stage would use it - but everyday people with average sized arms?

It is a sad day when we all start saying "well done!" to this kind of activity. What should be said is - What the fuck! You have 16 or 17 inch biceps [through the fat] - pull your finger out, get under the compound movements and get working hard!! Noone has an excuse using this shit till they get to a decent size.

I am sorry if this offends anyone on here - but this is an example of the old school "brotha" mentality of the boards back in the 1998-2002 period. Someone does somehting silly and everyone says "well done" rather than putting him straight.

Work Hard - Eat, and push the weight! Noone had 16 inch arms or whatever deadlifting 280kg and Shoulder Pressing 150kg. Work your way up to it and show some goddamn work ethic!

PS - This is a general rant and not directly at the OP - its just more and more people seem to be throwing this shit in them without the hard work to get where they need to

Well said...

 

[DatBtrue]

Lets stick with fundamentals. Cell Line? Please. Lets not try and over analyse and stick with core principle.

Again the core of the experiment was not on rat cells.

Gene Expression, uptake, down regulation, and pathway reactions are totally different in rats and humans. If you didnt know this - than maybe it would be worth researching a little more.

Again the cells were not rat cells.

The fact that the protocol was used in vivo in a rat was an adjunct to the primary part of the study.

I am well aware of the difference between rats and humans. I am well aware of the specific differences and similarities between humans and rats and mice.

I wasn't confusing the issue. The cell line that was used was not a rat cell line. It was not a cell line from a mouse.

The gene expression that was examined and receptor activity was not that of a rat or a mouse. It was human gene expression.

I wasn't using fuzzy language or using fancy words to hide the fact that a rat was not part of the primary study which was not on cells from rats.

I chose not to elaborate because you were not "getting" that simple point.

In fact the study used two different cell lines.

Both are commonly used in scientific research.

One cell line was a human cell line. It is specifically chosen because it circumvents the Hayflick Limit, which is the limited number of cell divisions that most normal cells can later undergo before dying out in cell culture.

There are many derivatives of this cell line but all share the above characteristic. Over the last 50 years this is the most commonly used human cell line throughout biomedical research to study the biochemical pathways of normal and diseased tissue in human cells.

The other cell line used is also commonly used in molecular biology, biochemistry, and cell biology experiments. It's origin comes from the monkey.

 

[WC114]

What do you think about adding very small amounts of AAS to the injections, maybe 1 or 2mg just to get the synergy effect cited in that study.

 

[Chrysler]

"I do not like them, Sam I am!"

Again the core of the experiment was not on rat cells.



Again the cells were not rat cells.

The fact that the protocol was used in vivo in a rat was an adjunct to the primary part of the study.

I am well aware of the difference between rats and humans. I am well aware of the specific differences and similarities between humans and rats and mice.

I wasn't confusing the issue. The cell line that was used was not a rat cell line. It was not a cell line from a mouse.

The gene expression that was examined and receptor activity was not that of a rat or a mouse. It was human gene expression.

I wasn't using fuzzy language or using fancy words to hide the fact that a rat was not part of the primary study which was not on cells from rats.

So, what you are saying is the study wasn't done on rats.

 

[J4CKT]

wow..

What a turn this thread took.. either way, the product clearly works - thank you for posting.

 

[leanbody]

bump

 

[Big A]

Is this about where you pinned?

The inner looks right. The outer looks a bit too close to the middle. I'd do them on the other side of the vein.

 

[leanbody]

The inner looks right. The outer looks a bit too close to the middle. I'd do them on the other side of the vein.

Thanks Big A;
Did it and it went smooth as silk. i was expecting a big lump to massage out, but it was very smooth. Did light bi curls to get the blood in there about 60 mins after. It didn't hurt at all - especially compared to pinning Test/deca there last week (did that as a trial run to see what a pin in the bi felt like - i'm sticking with the glutes for the gear from here on out.)

thanks for all your posts!