Austinite's Fat Loss Stack

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166186

"p-synephrine is structurally related to ephedrine [3, 6, 8] (Figure 2). However, ephedrine is a phenylpropanolamine (Figure 4) derivative and does not contain a para-substituted hydroxy group. The addition of the parahydroxygroup on the p-synephrine molecule, as well as the lack of the methyl group on the side chain change the stereochemistry and as a consequence the receptor binding characteristics and the pharmacokinetic properties, including the ability of p-synephrine to cross the blood-brain barrier. The lipid solubility of p-synephrine as compared to ephedrine is significantly decreased, resulting in little transport of p-synephrine into the CNS as compared to ephedrine [27]."
 
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166186

"p-synephrine is structurally related to ephedrine [3, 6, 8] (Figure 2). However, ephedrine is a phenylpropanolamine (Figure 4) derivative and does not contain a para-substituted hydroxy group. The addition of the parahydroxygroup on the p-synephrine molecule, as well as the lack of the methyl group on the side chain change the stereochemistry and as a consequence the receptor binding characteristics and the pharmacokinetic properties, including the ability of p-synephrine to cross the blood-brain barrier. The lipid solubility of p-synephrine as compared to ephedrine is significantly decreased, resulting in little transport of p-synephrine into the CNS as compared to ephedrine [27]."

Worthless.
 
I've been reading this forum daily for almost a year now and never really felt the need to post. It's just sad that the one time I come here to DISCUSS something (what a forum is based on).. I can't even get a useful response when I have legitimate questions. I understand you did your research, but I don't think it's out of line for me to ask what you've found. I'm not an expert, if I was I wouldn't be asking you questions.
 
I've been reading this forum daily for almost a year now and never really felt the need to post. It's just sad that the one time I come here to DISCUSS something (what a forum is based on).. I can't even get a useful response when I have legitimate questions. I understand you did your research, but I don't think it's out of line for me to ask what you've found. I'm not an expert, if I was I wouldn't be asking you questions.

Yeah, you can discuss. No one is stopping you. You're an ass though, and I'm not taking it. (I used to. Not anymore)

You will never find the info you're looking for until I release it, and it will be dated 2014. So keep looking and posting abstracts, trust me, there isn't one available from any clinical trial or observation that I haven't read, from any country.

I've released all the info I can, the rest will have to wait.
 

That wasn't sarcasm by the way. I'm published on 2 papers myself (in addiction pharmacology, not nutrition). I know how stressful it is.. Good luck! You're lack of desire to go into depth with my questions makes more sense now.
 
That wasn't sarcasm by the way. I'm published on 2 papers myself (in addiction pharmacology, not nutrition). I know how stressful it is.. Good luck! You're lack of desire to go into depth with my questions makes more sense now.

I know a biochem major wouldnt be sarcastic about that.

Thanks again and congrats on your papers. Have a powerful day.
 
I guess it doesn't matter for me right now as I am having a small diet dew problem and I can almost assure myself that knocks the stack over.
 
Sorry guys. Too many things effect the result. I really want to eliminate any chance of a poor review due to something I have not researched.

If you want to succeed as I did and many others, use my stack and only my stack. It's really all that it's about. No need to walk on eggshells, just take my advice, or do whatever you like but please, do not review it as "Austinite's stack". Review it as your own. I'm very proud of this stack. Hope you understand.
 
Back
Top