If you’re using a half inch needle you’re doing SQ anyway.
I got more aromatization injecting SQ when compared with IM. Doing IM 2x times weekly versus EOD, I substantially decreased aromatization on EOD and my numbers reflected it.
I am able to do IM with half inch needles in the quads and shoulders as I’m pretty lean in those areas.
My vials are individual 1 cc vials, 200mg per 1 cc (mL). I inject 0.5 cc from a 25 gauge 5/8" needle. An injection every 5 days.
Nope; I don’t have that much fat at my injection sites.
Not if youre lean and inject into a muscle. Skin, and fat are not half inch thick at the delts, lats, glutes, or quads.
What would the difference in results be of injecting into fat or muscle.
Excuse my ignorance i don’t actually know why we inject steroids IM
SubQ is different from IM when it comes to how quickly it get absorbed. Otherwise there aren’t really any differences. Now how it’s absorbed can result in different blood levels.
Interesting post today, the study they reference backs it up
My personal study shows it doesnt work. Anyway, if you want to inject SQ, go ahead. Shallow IM is where its at. Best of both worlds.
2 Likes
Personally I had the effect they’ve shown, higher e2 with IM injections, but I also felt best on them. Subq just felt kinda flat. Maybe I needed the higher conversion?
Interesting. I mean there is merit to real world experience. Everything is a mixed bag regarding TRT. Subq didnt work for me but I sometimes wonder if it could if I tried again. Feeling flat can be a combo of things. Its also human to feel flat once in a while.
1 Like
Is subq a slower absorption?
Presumably less spikes in test getting in the blood stream quickly and therefore aromatising?
So much conflicting info and studies in TRT its hard to know what to believe as a newbie to this stuff.
Also- were they infecting same frequency etc- lots of subq protocals seem to be everyday injections- IM not so much.
Can you find the actual study. I remember another study supported similar claims, but when inspected it did not support the claims because the dosing schedule was significantly different. They assumed since SubQ was less hassle, that patients would inject 2x per week vs. once with IM. They got 20% higher in the trough with SubQ, but that is no surprise.
I just want to know that the protocols are the same.
Yep I found it. They don’t actually say what the protocol was. I assume 1x week.
Edit: it’s also different esters and I assume different carrier oils
This is what I found when I searched as well. Couldn’t find more than this (was hoping to find an actual research paper with detail).
I made this error last time. Perhaps it is, but I wouldn’t assume so. The study I am referring too was also summarized in an article by T-Nation (John Crisler method). It claimed 20% higher Test levels doing SubQ. I thought great, no brainer. Then I heard all this stuff in the forums about IM being better for Test levels. So I went back to the T-Nation article, and read it carefully. SubQ twice a week, IM once, measured at the trough.
Yeah, that would make sense why SQ would look better using that protocol.
I’ve thought about trying SQ again, daily, since I’ve been doing daily IM now for 12+ weeks and should be able to notice any changes.
The article doesn’t mention how the guys felt, they just assume higher TT and lower e2 is a good thing. Probably not for everyone
I’m not seeing that in the article?
Split your normal weekly dosage into two equal doses. In other words, if you normally inject 200 mg. IM, inject 100 mg. twice a week. If your doctor has you using 100 mg. weekly, inject 50 mg. on Wednesday and 50 mg. Saturday for example.
Not the same article. It was another article on T-Nation a while back that I now consider misleading. The article in question (from today) has a lot of missing information. We don’t know how the experiment was run. They didn’t even use the same ester of Test. They were likely not the same brand (dosing can be off +/- 10%, especially if produced by a compounding pharmacy).
Based on what can be found in regards to this article’s reference material, I would say it is best to just ignore it.
1 Like
This is a good point. They were using test Cyp (likely CSO) meant for IM and an auto-injector of test e meant for SQ (so guessing SSO?). Not really apples to apples. But it’s a start. I’d like to see a follow up to address the missing variables
After that one study which promised 20% higher TT with SubQ, I need to see dosing frequency. I think perhaps there is an assumption that SubQ will be administered more because it is easier. IMO, the conclusion of that study is dosing more frequently means that trough levels will be higher, not that SubQ results in higher TT.
This study is contrary to individual blood test results others have posted on both IM and SubQ. Because of that it needs to be solid AF to sway my opinion.
1 Like