ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone Basics & Questions
Big Pharma vs Compounded T Comparison
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="madman" data-source="post: 180463" data-attributes="member: 13851"><p>The carrier oil (vehiculum) used in pharma grade T cyp is cottonseed whereas the compounded by Empower contains grapeseed.</p><p></p><p>Highly doubtful the difference in viscosity between the oils would have a large impact on the absorption/release of T from the oily depot formed after injection and even than excipients such as benzyl alcohol are added which <u>reduces the viscosity of the lipid carrier and/or increases solubility</u>.</p><p></p><p>When doing a true comparison as long as the strength of both preparations was the same per ml, injection volume (oil) was the same let alone using the same injection method (strictly sub-q or strictly IM), same injection frequency and using the same injection sites than there should not be a difference between testosterone levels achieved.</p><p></p><p>If a true comparison was done and blood work resulted in showing a drastic difference in testosterone levels than most likely the compounded T was underdosed.</p><p></p><p>The aliphatic ester side-chain length would be the main driver controlling the release rate.</p><p>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)">The most widely used testosterone formulation for many decades has been the intramuscular injection of testosterone esters,</span> <em><strong><span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)">formed by 17b-esterification of testosterone <u>with fatty acids of various aliphatic and/or aromatic chain lengths</u>, injected in a vegetable oil vehicle</span></strong></em>. <em><strong><span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)">This depot product relies on the retarded release of the testosterone ester from the oil vehicle injection depot because esters undergo rapid hydrolysis by ubiquitous esterases to liberate free testosterone into the circulation.</span></strong></em> <span style="color: rgb(44, 130, 201)"><strong><em>The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of androgen esters is therefore <u>primarily determined by ester side-chain length, the volume of oil vehicle, and site of injection via hydrophobic physicochemical partitioning of the androgen ester between the hydrophobic oil vehicle and the aqueous extracellular fluid</u>.</em></strong></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="madman, post: 180463, member: 13851"] The carrier oil (vehiculum) used in pharma grade T cyp is cottonseed whereas the compounded by Empower contains grapeseed. Highly doubtful the difference in viscosity between the oils would have a large impact on the absorption/release of T from the oily depot formed after injection and even than excipients such as benzyl alcohol are added which [U]reduces the viscosity of the lipid carrier and/or increases solubility[/U]. When doing a true comparison as long as the strength of both preparations was the same per ml, injection volume (oil) was the same let alone using the same injection method (strictly sub-q or strictly IM), same injection frequency and using the same injection sites than there should not be a difference between testosterone levels achieved. If a true comparison was done and blood work resulted in showing a drastic difference in testosterone levels than most likely the compounded T was underdosed. The aliphatic ester side-chain length would be the main driver controlling the release rate. . [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]The most widely used testosterone formulation for many decades has been the intramuscular injection of testosterone esters,[/COLOR] [I][B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]formed by 17b-esterification of testosterone [U]with fatty acids of various aliphatic and/or aromatic chain lengths[/U], injected in a vegetable oil vehicle[/COLOR][/B][/I]. [I][B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]This depot product relies on the retarded release of the testosterone ester from the oil vehicle injection depot because esters undergo rapid hydrolysis by ubiquitous esterases to liberate free testosterone into the circulation.[/COLOR][/B][/I] [COLOR=rgb(44, 130, 201)][B][I]The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of androgen esters is therefore [U]primarily determined by ester side-chain length, the volume of oil vehicle, and site of injection via hydrophobic physicochemical partitioning of the androgen ester between the hydrophobic oil vehicle and the aqueous extracellular fluid[/U].[/I][/B][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone Basics & Questions
Big Pharma vs Compounded T Comparison
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top