Reasonable DIY Transdermal Testosterone

[brightside]

Small Update
I've been messing around with the fatty alcohols, specifically octanol (C8) and nonanol (C9). They are interesting compounds that work well. The major downside or complaint that I have with them is their smell. It sucks that this is a potential problem, but it is what it is. Both of them smell fatty and citrusy. The citrus smell is fine, but the fatty smell is off putting at higher concentrations. With 5% nonanol in a lotion, I can smell it right away, and even large amounts of Limonene and Eucalyptol aren't enough to overpower it. It's not a terrible smell, but it isn't super pleasant either. The closest that I can compare it to is citrus scented Clorox wipes, but also with a fatty smell. To go around this, I will use 2% instead of 5%, since I think only the concentration of the oil phase matters. Technically, the water shouldn't be included since it evaporates or gets absorbed into the skin or clothes and therefore shouldn't impact the penetration. If my oil phase is 40% then 2% of nonanol would be enough to create a 5% concentration in the oil phase.

Regarding the general efficacy of the lotion, I think using nonanol creates an powerful lotion. Unfortunately, the best data that I have to go off of is just my subjective experience, but it's the best I have at the moment. Alright, so how does it perform? Well, first, I wasn't applying to the scrotum anymore but on random body parts. (I will explain the reasoning for this later) It took four hours to feel anything, and 6 hours for it to actually be noticeable. The effects kept climbing, but eventually I had to go to sleep. That was day 1. Day 2 and 3 I had digestive problems and very little sleep, so nothing to report from those days. On the morning of Day 3 I used 100mg and now it's Day 4 and I still feel the effects over 24 hours later. Both this, and the very slow peak suggests to me that this could be applied only once a day. Obviously, I need to give it a fair and long trial, but since I'm constantly changing the formula It's impossible to do that.

This specific lotion is 10% and has an oil phase of 44%. Despite such a large oil phase, the lotion is thin and almost watery. This is due to the fatty alcohols which seem to disrupt the normal emulsification and make it thinner. Interestingly, the fatty alcohols also help a little bit with solubilization.

I was hypothesizing earlier that perhaps the micelles themselves increase the solubility by incorporating the hormone into the lipid layer. I don't know if this is true or not, but almost none of my oil phases are capable of holding the hormone concentrations on their own. Once the oil phase cools, the hormone crashes. Yet, if I form an emulsion, there is no signs of crashing once it is applied to the skin. To further support this, using nonanol, I was able to make a 15% DHEA lotion with no problem, and because of the nonanol it wasn't too thick despite having a giant oil phase of 52%. I think I could push this further, and make a 20% DHEA lotion.

Since Stearyl alcohol thickens and stabilizes, I think it's fair to assume that octanol thins and de-stabilizes. If this is the case, then using too much will probably result in separation after some time. I think there's probably some kind of balance to be reached, but these lotions have yet to separate after a few days, which is a good sign. Anyways, I think that the fatty alcohols are incorporating into the lipid layer, perhaps with the hormone, and creating different or just weaker micelles. This is kind of a good thing, since spreading on the skin is easier, and it goes clear very quickly. (instead of having micelles hang around for a long time from my other batches). The fatty alcohols are helping create a better lotion which spreads easier, holds more, and penetrates better. I think if the problem of smell can be managed(maybe by using longer, different smelling fatty alcohols), medium chain fatty alcohols will help create better lotions.

 

[Johhnyb]

Hmm, I wonder if squalane would also work. It's not exactly a precursor, squalene is (the unsaturated version). But perhaps the body can utilize both.


Yeah I get that. I went through so many failed batches, its such a waste. Interesting that the Vit E doesn't change the texture, I assume it's getting solubilized. Hmm, that means that the lanolin isn't and also that it would indeed be a good option for a thicker DMSO solution.

Nice. P5, P4, DHEA, T, DHT and something else?

Squalene would definitely work better if the goal was just to have a precursor. Lanolin is for the skin, but supposedly has something like < 3%wt lanolin alcohols which I believe can be precursors to cholesterol. Can’t remember where I’d see that, but like I say just a nice bonus.

Edit: having thought about it since I posted the above, you’ve now intrigued me to see if squalene might be good to incorporate with the lanolin. Definitely going to do some work around.

Yeah Vit E is soluble in DMSO, although solubility seems to change wildly depending on type. I just tried a low concentration and it worked.

 

[brightside]

Squalene would definitely work better if the goal was just to have a precursor. Lanolin is for the skin, but supposedly has something like < 3%wt lanolin alcohols which I believe can be precursors to cholesterol. Can’t remember where I’d see that, but like I say just a nice bonus.

Edit: having thought about it since I posted the above, you’ve now intrigued me to see if squalene might be good to incorporate with the lanolin. Definitely going to do some work around.

Yeah Vit E is soluble in DMSO, although solubility seems to change wildly depending on type. I just tried a low concentration and it worked.

Yeah, I get it. Although, squalane is used to moisturize the skin so it might work with DMSO, but I don't imagine it would work better than lanolin. Unlike squalane, squalene might be hard to find, so it might not be an option after all.

 

[Johhnyb]

Yeah, I get it. Although, squalane is used to moisturize the skin so it might work with DMSO, but I don't imagine it would work better than lanolin. Unlike squalane, squalene might be hard to find, so it might not be an option after all.

Yeah just had a brief look and it’s really hard (squalene) to find, the most realistic possibility so far being sigma!

Cholesterol being cheaper to source would therefore make that a better option, and I originally thought that was a bit pricey by comparison to lanolin. Might just stick with lanolin.

 

[Johhnyb]

Deleted double post

 

[blackface]

@brightside If we compare the DMSO formula with the Ethanol + oil formula, how much of a diference in skin penetration there is? Lets say DMSO has a 90% penetration so the ethanol could have like 30%?

What do you think?

 

[brightside]

@brightside If we compare the DMSO formula with the Ethanol + oil formula, how much of a diference in skin penetration there is? Lets say DMSO has a 90% penetration so the ethanol could have like 30%?

What do you think?

It's kind of hard to answer that. The few studies that I looked at with AndroGel suggest a total absorption around 9-14%. That's with IPM, which increases flux dramatically. Actually, you even linked to a specific study talking about it.

Im using this formula which gives you about 100mg/ml. What Matestube said is that isopropyl myristate should increase the absorbtion rate.

"Gels containing 2% IPM exhibited 11 folds increase in flux compared to formulation devoid of IPM"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315501927_Effect_of_Isopropyl_Myristate_on_Transdermal_Permeation_of_Testosterone_From_Carbopol_Gel

3g testosterone prop
25ml pure 96% Vodka
3ml isopropyl myristate

The thing is, though, that flux and total absorption is not the same thing. Flux is hormone absorbed over a period of time over a particular surface area. An 11x increase in flux doesn't mean an 11x increase in absorption, rather quicker, and more efficient absorption. I'm sure that a higher flux means higher absorption, but It's not directly related. You can increase surface area, which will give you a much higher total flux, but that doesn't mean that you necessarily had a higher % of hormone penetrate (still the same 9-14%, just faster).

You could think of it like the speed of a car. If you have two cars each given the same amount of fuel, but driven at different speeds, they would still travel roughly the same distance. Of course there are factors such as drag, and optimal RPMs and load for the highest MPG, but that also applies here, since penetration enhancer depletion is a problem. If you had an endlessly sustained flux, you would eventually absorb all 100%, but that doesn't happen. It eventually slows and stops. Therefore flux only kind of informs you of how much hormone is absorbed, but of course is still relevant.

There's probably a sweet spot of the thickness of the solution that you apply on your skin, such that absorption is maximized and the least amount is left. Ethanol is particularly good for spreading across skin, while AndroGel's viscocity could result in excess hormone placed over the skin, which would be potentially wasted (OTOH, could be a good reservoir). The cumulative flux of the study that you linked is over 50 hours. That means that hormone could be wasted by showering, or rubbing off on clothes. Carbomer does seem to largely prevent that, but the showering is inevitable. Anyways, that means, over those 50+ hours, the AndroGel will probably be somewhat rubbed off, and therefore explain the reduced 9-14% absorption.

On the other hand, the authors of the DutchTest argue that the 9-14% estimate is too liberal.

This study seems to be the source others use in claiming an AndroGel absorption rate of 9-14%. The author states, “assuming all endogenous T was suppressed.” This assumption seems faulty given that the 100mgs given in this study has been shown to only partially suppress testosterone. If this assumption is NOT true, the 9-14% absorption for 100mg dosing would be a high estimate.

https://dutchtest.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Transdermal-T-Best-Practices-and-Lit-Review-REF121019.pdf

AndroGel sustains blood concentrations fairly well, however if you look at the full range, some men had hypogonadal levels after application, while others jumped up to 1000ng/dL. This makes it even harder to tell how well it absorbs, since each person's metabolism is wildly different. Therefore, basing absorption numbers on suppression indeed seems faulty.

I have seen the 30% number around as well, but I'm not sure where it came from. If you know the study suggesting that number, I would be curious to check it out. I think the success of ethanol solutions is only due to the scrotal application. I would imagine that it's incredibly high, and that there's some kind of threshold of SC thickness and the permeation power of ethanol ( I mean a non-linear relationship between SC thickness and ethanol penetration). Personally, the AndroGel knock-off that I used was incredibly underwhelming. Doses of 50-100mg on my shoulders gave me noticeable effects for roughly 4-8 hours. The AndroGel studies support the mediocrity of it given the average blood levels of T.

Interestingly, IPM seems to be a very worthwhile additive. In the study above it retarded ethanol evaporation, and had other effects that increased skin penetration, such as the push-pull effect. I'm really not sure why people don't want to use it.

To summarize, Ive got no idea. But, it seems almost useless unless applied to thin skin like the scrotum, navel, and maybe armpits.

 

[brightside]

Yeah just had a brief look and it’s really hard (squalene) to find, the most realistic possibility so far being sigma!

Cholesterol being cheaper to source would therefore make that a better option, and I originally thought that was a bit pricey by comparison to lanolin. Might just stick with lanolin.

Yeah, it's clearly just a bad option overall.

Using cholesterol will probably eat at your hormone concentration, so that's a reason to avoid it. It does seem like lanolin is best. I figure you can just eat some extra egg yolks or something.

 

[blackface]

It's kind of hard to answer that. The few studies that I looked at with AndroGel suggest a total absorption around 9-14%. That's with IPM, which increases flux dramatically. Actually, you even linked to a specific study talking about it.

The thing is, though, that flux and total absorption is not the same thing. Flux is hormone absorbed over a period of time over a particular surface area. An 11x increase in flux doesn't mean an 11x increase in absorption, rather quicker, and more efficient absorption. I'm sure that a higher flux means higher absorption, but It's not directly related. You can increase surface area, which will give you a much higher total flux, but that doesn't mean that you necessarily had a higher % of hormone penetrate (still the same 9-14%, just faster).

You could think of it like the speed of a car. If you have two cars each given the same amount of fuel, but driven at different speeds, they would still travel roughly the same distance. Of course there are factors such as drag, and optimal RPMs and load for the highest MPG, but that also applies here, since penetration enhancer depletion is a problem. If you had an endlessly sustained flux, you would eventually absorb all 100%, but that doesn't happen. It eventually slows and stops. Therefore flux only kind of informs you of how much hormone is absorbed, but of course is still relevant.

There's probably a sweet spot of the thickness of the solution that you apply on your skin, such that absorption is maximized and the least amount is left. Ethanol is particularly good for spreading across skin, while AndroGel's viscocity could result in excess hormone placed over the skin, which would be potentially wasted (OTOH, could be a good reservoir). The cumulative flux of the study that you linked is over 50 hours. That means that hormone could be wasted by showering, or rubbing off on clothes. Carbomer does seem to largely prevent that, but the showering is inevitable. Anyways, that means, over those 50+ hours, the AndroGel will probably be somewhat rubbed off, and therefore explain the reduced 9-14% absorption.

On the other hand, the authors of the DutchTest argue that the 9-14% estimate is too liberal.

https://dutchtest.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Transdermal-T-Best-Practices-and-Lit-Review-REF121019.pdf

AndroGel sustains blood concentrations fairly well, however if you look at the full range, some men had hypogonadal levels after application, while others jumped up to 1000ng/dL. This makes it even harder to tell how well it absorbs, since each person's metabolism is wildly different. Therefore, basing absorption numbers on suppression indeed seems faulty.

I have seen the 30% number around as well, but I'm not sure where it came from. If you know the study suggesting that number, I would be curious to check it out. I think the success of ethanol solutions is only due to the scrotal application. I would imagine that it's incredibly high, and that there's some kind of threshold of SC thickness and the permeation power of ethanol ( I mean a non-linear relationship between SC thickness and ethanol penetration). Personally, the AndroGel knock-off that I used was incredibly underwhelming. Doses of 50-100mg on my shoulders gave me noticeable effects for roughly 4-8 hours. The AndroGel studies support the mediocrity of it given the average blood levels of T.

Interestingly, IPM seems to be a very worthwhile additive. In the study above it retarded ethanol evaporation, and had other effects that increased skin penetration, such as the push-pull effect. I'm really not sure why people don't want to use it.

To summarize, Ive got no idea. But, it seems almost useless unless applied to thin skin like the scrotum, navel, and maybe armpits.

Thank you for your extensive response.

 

[brightside]

Thank you for your extensive response.

No problem, but I don't think it answered any questions. haha

 

[Santosh]

I'm really not sure why people don't want to use it.

Because it has no safety track record ?

 

[brightside]

Because it has no safety track record ?

Huh? Lol

IPM is a fatty alcohol ester made from a combination of a saturated fat (myristic acid - C14), and isopropyl alcohol. Myristic acid is benign and metabolically neutral, while isopropanol is indeed toxic. However, so is ethanol.

IPM is used by millions of people in the form of hand sanitizer. Not all have it, but a good chunk do. Additionally, some skin care products use it as an emollient. Its main problem is skin irritation which many penetration enhancers share. It's kind of the nature of a lipid disruptor, to disrupt.. lol

Once in the body, it is hydrolyzed to the two ingredients that make it up, and each is managed appropriately. In the quantities that are used in transdermal products, I think the toxicity of isopropanol is irrelevant.

 

[brightside]

Updated lotion recipe

Alright, I figured that I will post my updated recipes in case anyone is interested.

I have mostly been using 10% lotions, but I did manage to make a 21% lotion with DHEA without much issue (200mg/ml). I would try pushing it even more, but because of the waxy nature of hormones, once rubbed onto skin, the skin feels grippy and waxy. This is probably inevitable with higher concentrations, and would probably only work with lotions used on the scrotum. When such lotions are on regular skin, I think that clothes might rub it off more than the slippery variations.

Also, I am using an additional emulsifier, Eumulgin SG, or also known as sodium stearoyl glutamate. This emulsifier is much more potent than GSSE, and is often used from 0.5 to 2%. This emulsifier is simply stearic acid attached to glutamate with some sodium ions. Because of this specific structure, it is able to have a very high HLB despite not being ethoxylated. Additionally, it can form lamellar gels, which have their own interesting properties (such as resistance to being rubbed off, and delayed release into the skin). Eumulgin is considered a safe and very mild emulsifier on the skin. It was a couple bucks, and I was curious, so I bought it. Turns out, it's a very nice addition to the lotion and improves the thickness, slip, and skin feel of the final product. Using it, I am able to cut down on the more grippy GSSE and counteract the waxiness of the hormones.

Anyways, here is the recipe:

Ingredient	Purpose	%
Emulsifiers:
Eumulgin SG	Emulsification, and potential lamellar gel creation.	1
Glyceryl Stearate SE	Emulsification	4
Stearyl Alcohol	Stabilization to counteract the nonanol	2
Penetration Enhancers:
Lauric Acid	PE and Solubilization	6-7
Propylene Glycol	PE and Solubilization	6-7
Nonanol	PE and Solubilization	2
Other
Vitamin E	Antioxidant	1
D-Limonene	Mild preservative, PE, and fragrance	0.5
Eucalyptol	Mild preservative, PE, and fragrance	0.5
Hormone of choice		11
MCT (or other oils)	Filler oil to boost the size of the oil phase and increase thickness	QS, but I used 15
Preservative for water phase	Prevent bacterial and fungal growth	0.5-1

Yes, it's quite a bit of ingredients, but they all are pretty cheap and available. The terpenes aren't necessary by any means and probably only add a small benefit (at that concentration). Since I have them, I use them. They do help to create a better smell, though. Since I cut nonanol to 2% instead of 5%, I can smell it much less. With the terpenes, it blends into an overall OK smell that isn't problematic.

The 21% lotion is incredibly similar to this, with the difference being the increased hormone up to 21%, no MCT, and the PG/LA bumped up to 10% each.

 

[Santosh]

isopropanol is indeed toxic. However, so is ethanol.

Ethanol is formed in nature and is quite efficiently metabolized by the human body, unlike isopropanol.

Isopropanol's LD50 is 50% lower than ethanol's.

IPM is used by millions of people in the form of hand sanitizer.

That's nowhere near reassuring to me. The average person doesn't usually make very health conscious decisions.

 

[brightside]

Ethanol is formed in nature and is quite efficiently metabolized by the human body, unlike isopropanol.

Isopropanol's LD50 is 50% lower than ethanol's.

Are you saying ethanol is not a toxin? Because it clearly is. And despite isopropanol’s LD50 being much lower, the amount the you would absorb is negligible.

The nature fallacy isn't helping your argument either, especially since both IPA and IPM are found in nature as well.

I mean come on, you’re clearly reaching. It's especially obvious coming from you, who used benzyl alcohol and confirmed its toxicity, considered self-phlebotomy, and took obscure chelators. You don't actually care that much about safety.

What people’s health decisions are has nothing to do with the fact that IPM has been applied probably billions of times on people’s skin with little effect. If you can find me a study saying it's absolutely toxic, ill read it.

 

[Santosh]

considered self-phlebotomy, and took obscure chelators. You don't actually care that much about safety.

These are the two healthiest things I have done for my health, they are getting me out of the darkness I was in for years.
I don't think you know about either, why even comment and put them in the bag of risky things ?

IPM has been applied probably billions of times on people’s skin with little effect.

How would you know ?
Those people have been followed ?
Whatever disease they have, has any doctor even considered it could come from the IPM when establishing the diagnosis ?

 

[brightside]

These are the two healthiest things I have done for my health, they are getting me out of the darkness I was in for years.
I don't think you know about either, why even comment and put them in the bag of risky things ?

That's good it helped, I'm glad you are doing better.

But it has nothing to do with safety. If cancer medication kills the cancer and "cures" the patient, does that make it safe?
Huh? I also don't think that you know about IPM, why even comment?
I don't need to know about self-phlebotomy to know that it's dangerous. Your post even made Danny Roddy reply haha

How would you know ?
Those people have been followed ?
Whatever disease they have, has any doctor even considered it could come from the IPM when establishing the diagnosis ?

Bad questions, you know I can't answer that. What I can suggest is the EWG's look at IPM. No organization is without flaw, but theirs seems the best around. They mention a total of 1910 studies which include IPM. It doesn't mean that they all look at the toxicity of IPM, but if there would be, it would be noticed and mentioned. The simple fact that there are 1910 studies including IPM shows that IPM has been around, it's been looked at, experimented with, etc.

The last question is silly, since there are countless things that you could replace IPM with that are part of your daily life. EMF, environmental toxins such as pesticides, toxins from clothes, plastics, etc. But you don't seem to be particularly worried about those. For the price, low irritation, and benefits of IPM, to me it seems illogical not to use it. And your skepticism towards it seems unproportional to your skepticism towards other substances.

 

[Santosh]

Your post even made Danny Roddy reply haha

How is this guy a reference in any way ?

 

[golder]

Where's Danny's reply? I can't see it on this thread.

 

[brightside]

I wanted to update this thread with my results, since that's what actually matters. Unfortunately, I won't be able to get bloods for a while, but for now, my subjective experience is good enough for me. At this point, I am getting decent results. They might not seem impressive, but given my health state, they are incredibly dramatic.

Currently I am using 200mg of T with the 10% lotion on my upper thighs at night. The comeup is slow, something like 6-8 hours, but it seems to last the entire day. It's hard for me to be a good judge of this, since my other issues cloud the results, but this specific method and application has been by far the most effective and long-lasting. I seem to have an issue with boosting levels too high too fast, so the slow burn of this method seems to be actually making it work for me. I'm not sure if it's just aromatization or perhaps the effect that @blackface mentioned, but sky-rocketing T levels is essentially useless for me. I might feel a touch wired so perhaps its this:

Spoiler

Yes, its hard to describe but I will use some stament from other member from a steroid forum.

View attachment 48623

Anyways, here are the things that I have tried, and the results of each. All of these methods I messed around with for a 1-2 weeks each, so each one of them got a decent run. The latest method I have been using for around 2 weeks and the results have been consistent the entire time (minus bad digestion days).

​

DMSO:​

Location: forearms, legs.
Dose: 1-30mg
Onset/Duration: 1 hour/4-8 hours
Effects: Mild energy, giddiness and edginess, mild euphoria, increased hot flashes.
At 30mg I felt nothing. Lower doses were most effective.

DIY Androgel:​

Location: Shoulders
Dose: 25-100mg
Onset/Duration: 2 hours/6-8 hours
Effects: Mild energy, edginess, mild clarity, increased hot flashes

DIY Cream:​

Location: scrotum, upper thighs
Dose: 10-200mg
Onset/Duration: Depends on the area. Scortal - 1 hour/16 hours, Thigh - 8 hours/ 20hours
Effects:
Scrotal low dose - emotional stability, calmness, strength increase. Increase in gonad size
Scortal high dose - honestly don't remember. It was some combination of the benefits/sides as the things above. I forgot because it was unimpressive.
Thigh high dose -
- Reduction in POTS - I can stand and not feel drained mentally. I can run, finally. I feel much improved blood flow to my brain, and therefore have much better prefrontal cortex function. That means, mental clarity, motivation, personality, working memory, etc. My functional work hours went from 2-3 to around 8 per day.
- Reduction in lactic acidosis and Kussmaul breathing.
- Improved digestion and appetite.
- Increase in dopamine levels - mental clarity, energy, and focus. Background "buzz" that replaces mild dysphoria which made me want to distract myself at all times.
- Sharper vision.
- Increase in hot flashes

Clearly, I have a large set of metabolic problems. Using T is an obvious band-aid, but the opportunity cost is too high. It's surprisingly effective on issues that aren't directly related, like POTS, and I assume that's because of the reduction of catabolism. I get increased hot flashes from any application method, but they appear on their own due to the metabolic acidosis. I might grab an AI to manage the increased estrogen, but doubt that the hot flashes will fully go away until I manage to fix my metabolism. The scrotal T use does nicely boost DHT, but it's not enough in my case to oppose the partially metabolic caused hot flashes.

Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with the cream. A professional formulator pointed out that the penetration enhancers might incorporate into emulsion interface and therefore not perform well. If that's true, then I need to seriously reconsider the formula, but for now it seems to be working well. I will be messing around in the future with the application area and method and will keep this thread updated.