T Nation

Bill Roberts - Please Answer

In regards to a competitor’s topical diol products, please comment on the following:

  1. They use Ethanol rather than Isopropyl alcohol (they claim that it is not sticky, dries faster, and does not leave any white residue)
  2. More spray released per shot, and therefore less time to spray
  3. One of the ingrediants is Isopropyl Myristate. Which is supposed to dramatically improve the absorption of the diol into the skin

I would really appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks…Pete

So the claimed benefits of IPM are not there. That would be all right perhaps if there were no drawbacks, but there are (besides the irritation.) Just as gluing something onto an oily surface results in poorer adhesion than gluing something onto a clean, dry surface, while 4-AD bonds very well to clean, dry skin, forming a tightly bonded amorphous film, the presence of IPM (an oily substance) interferes with this. Their product comes off the skin too easily. This might not be relevant if one simply stood still naked all day, but that isn’t the case for most people.

Why does their product contain IPM then? I believe it is very simple. Until they learned the general details of Androsol, they were working on releasing a hydroalcoholic gel, same as has been done many times with many products. I advised them, when asked, to include IPM in such a product. Furthermore, I use IPM in my academic research in transdermal delivery. On learning that Androsol was to be an alcohol spray, and learning how much was to be applied, 4 days later this company announced their product was going to be an alcohol spray, too, having said only a few days earlier that they would do a gel. Hmmm… It would have been a reasonable guess, to people not expert in transdermal delivery, that Androsol was going to use IPM, based on the advice I’d given them on the gel and my use of it in academic research, so it’s not surprising an attempted “clone” would have it, but it was a wrong guess and it is inappropriate for this type of product.

But all these claims of theirs sure do make it sound like Androsol is a dog, don’t they?

Funny how we don’t go about selling Androsol by constantly arguing that their stuff is inferior in various regards (though it is :wink:

I guess it’s just a difference in business philosophy.

  1. When isopropyl myristate is applied in a substantial amount to the surface of the skin, and allowed quite some period of time (24 hours for near-maximal effect, and at least 12 hours for any real effect) it draws lipids out of the skin, damages it, and makes it much more permeable. Important point, this is not an increase in the percent delivered vs applied, which would be a good thing, just a question of a higher rate. This process is highly irritating and would not be desirable in any consumer product. (It can be appropriate in disease treatment, where the irritation is worth the benefit.)

There is no evidence at all that the amount of IPM applied per square inch by their product increases rate of prohormone delivery at all.

Their assertions that Androsol, lacking IPM, delivers prohormone too slowly are simply a complete fabrication. Our studies, including an independent University study, show that the duration of action of Androsol, which is dependent on rate of delivery, is ideally suited to the twice per day dosing. That is no coincidence, by the way: I designed it that way intentionally. There would be no benefit to faster delivery: it would simply cause the duration of action to be too short. We want the the delivery of the amount applied to be over 12 hours, not to blow its wad within say 6 hours. I wouldn’t want a faster rate.

They argue that since Androgel, a hydroalcoholic gel to deliver testosterone, uses IPM, therefore it must be the smart thing to use. However, the reason for the presence of IPM in this product is almost certainly not penetration enhancement. The flux of the product is not what you’d get with the degree of penetration enhancement that IPM provides, when it is working as a penetration enhancer. So why is it there? Hydroalcoholic gels tend to be drying to the skin, and IPM is often used as a skin moisturizing agent to counter such problems in both cosmetics and drugs.

Besides all this, a hydroalcohol gel is different than an alcohol spray, and their product applies far less IPM per square inch than Androgel does, so the analogy is not a valid one.

The competing spray product does cause skin irritation, sometimes quite bad skin irritation, in many users, and while this is because of their inclusion of IPM, it’s not, in my opinion, from the drawing out of skin lipids, since the amount applied per square inch is so small. Rather, myristic acid is a common impurity in all but the very best grades of IPM, and myristic acid is highly irritating.

(continued)

Pete, addressing your questions in order:

  1. Isopropyl alcohol is not sticky. Neither is Androsol when correctly applied. It is sticky only if sprayed much too heavily which is easy not to do. Whether the prohormone is dissolved in ethanol or isopropyl alcohol has nothing to do with stickiness.

Isopropyl alcohol dries at the rate I consider ideal. It hardly takes too long from the standpoint of being bothersome – I get dressed within 60 seconds of applying – but does give enough time for phase transfer: for the prohormone to partition from the evaporating alcohol into the lipids of the top layer of ths skin. My experimentation on alcohol choice included ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, n-propanol, butanol, and some mixtures of these. The isopropyl alcohol and n-propanol, which behaved very similarly, were the best choices and that’s why Androsol uses them.

Sure, an ad saying “Ours dries faster, while the competitor’s product dries too slowly because they use the wrong alcohol” is no doubt effective at sales but has no merit in fact. Faster is not always better and isn’t in this case.

Androsol leaves a white residue only rarely when applied improperly. The application would be improper – uneven film too thick in places – even if no residue formed. (If the film is too thick, it is simply wasted. The prohormone goes through the skin at the same rate regardless of film thickness, and if the film is so thick that it is not almost entirely used up by the time of the next application, the excess is simply wasted.) More to the point, this has nothing to do with the choice of alcohol. This trivial and avoidable “problem” does not occur with the other product for an entirely different reason, the IPM, which is discussed below.

So all those points regarding the alcohol are invalid.

  1. The president of the company in question admittedly publicly, on a Usenet newsgroup, that his sprayer was inferior and he would change to one like ours as soon as he exhausted his stock of the current sprayers. Perhaps he has not exhausted his stock yet, or perhaps the advertising advantages of asserting that Androsol is hard work to apply and too time consuming (both are false) outweigh the performance disadvantage.

Namely, it is impossible to apply as light and even a misting over as large an area with their sprayer, because it delivers far too much per spray. You just don’t have the control you need.

No one who has used Androsol considers it a hard matter to apply 70 sprays, or time consuming. So far as I know, no one who has tried both thinks the other sprayer is better. We have had posts on this forum, from people who have tried both products, saying plainly that the other is inferior, and I’ve been informed that personally many times. And as mentioned, the president of that company admitted it publicly sometime last year.

So much for that point.

(continued)

Thank you very much for your response Bill, I really appreciate it. I suspected many of the points that you raised but wanted to hear from the source. I have always been a loyal Biotest product user but wanted to be sure I was using the best prohormone products available. I firmly believe I have been. Can you ever forgive me for doubting Biotest (sniff, sniff)?

By the way, where is the N17E and T17E (sorry, I had to ask)? Finally, do you need any "guinea pigs" for any new products? If you would like to discuss this, please e-mail me.

Take care and thanks again for the candid repsonse.

Long live Biotest!

…Pete

I’ve used both products, and I will say that Androsol is far better than the other product. The other product made my skin dry and flaked off. Androsol is easy to spray and dries easily.

Thanks, Pete. T-17E is at the moment about 2 feet away on a shelf where I keep samples and things :wink:

Hey, at the risk of overkill on the topic of Androsol’s design, I’d still like to add one thing, summing it up way shorter than I did last night.

I’m not
one of those persons who is stubborn and if some better way comes along,
refuses to adopt it. If any of the differing features of
another product – by anyone – were in my opinion improvements, and (as
would be the case here) legal for us to adopt, I’d adopt them in a
heartbeat. I definitely want the best product we can make, the best
product out there, period. And that’s completely regardless if having it
means acknowledging someone else had a good idea. In fact,
due to academic background, I make a careful point of making sure to
acknowledge when someone else has a good idea.

Here that isn’t the case. Not the ethanol, not the sprayer, and not the
IPM. It’s as simple as that.

And Pete, I understand completely why you asked. They made what sounded like a convincing case and it was a very good question.

Bill,thanks for clearing this matter up for us.As far as I’m concerned androsol rocks!