(the answer above is for you, too)
Not quite. I understand the ease to kill two birds with one stone, but your answer to Hans was far from relevant to my point.
And, just like Hans, I can't really understand the point you are trying to make.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
(the answer above is for you, too)
Absolutely. Applying things to the scrotum is not good. Peat used to disrecommend it. There is absolutely no need to do it anyway.I think the principle "First do no harm" applies here before we have more data. I am totally fine with scrotal application of substances for medical reasons in men that have wives clearly above child-bearing age. However, to suggest it to young men seems irresponsible to me, especially as a lifestyle-modification.
Absolutely. Applying things to the scrotum is not good. Peat used to disrecommend it. There is absolutely no need to do it anyway.
Even with men with no concerns about fertility, our balls produce 90% of T. If you **** them up, your T will always be low.
Don't do it. No need for it.
Sorry I don't have it at hand, it is somewhere in the forum.Can anyone quote the exact physiological reason why Peat discourages it ?
Apologies, I guess it was only clear in my head.Not quite. I understand the ease to kill two birds with one stone, but your answer to Hans was far from relevant to my point.
And, just like Hans, I can't really understand the point you are trying to make.
The dose makes the poison. I never argued that the pharmacological properties of a substance magically change by route of application (assuming no metabolisation of course, before someone gets that wrong). If substance a is still substance a, there won't be a difference that is caused by the substance itself, just by its concentration and distribution.I don't think metformin would suddenly become more toxic if applied on the scrotum.
Yes I get what you're saying and agree that it's risky business, especially if it's a potent stimulant like K2.Apologies, I guess it was only clear in my head.
What I meant: I am aware of the high 5AR acitivity in the skin and the higher absorption compared to regular skin. I was arguing that there is a reasonable possibility that the substances applied there reach a higher concentration in the tissue of the testicles.
Therefore, I think caution is warranted. Hope it is clear what I meant.
The dose makes the poison. I never argued that the pharmacological properties of a substance magically change by route of application (assuming no metabolisation of course, before someone gets that wrong). If substance a is still substance a, there won't be a difference that is caused by the substance itself, just by its concentration and distribution.
I did however make the point that we don't know what concentrations are reached in the parenchyma.
Generally, I hope that you are right. That is just not enough for me when dealing with such a sensitive system.
Edit: I am making a general statement about that quote, not about metformin.