Wondering what the consensus is for IM vs SQ which is superior for reducing estrogen conversion? There is much conflicting data out there on the interweb, Ksman? your thoughts?
I believe the prevailing wisdom is that sq allows for a slower, more steady release of T which leads to less T–>E2
Thanks…any truth that SQ results in lower overall T levels? or is it a case of taking longer to build up to the level you had with IM due to slower release?
I have gone to SQ these last 6 weeks and am getting new blood work tomorrow. Not that one guy proves much, but the subject is interesting to me.
Nothing but broscience on that subject. Move on… Assume same results
I inject sq and my TT and FT were both thru the roof. I had to decrease my T cyp dose by 60%. There is no doubt that sq is 100% absorbed. Also painless and without putting thousands of holes in your muscles!
Amen to the painless part. I do not enjoy pain
I read Crisler’s book and he had a chapter for SubQ injections, he said that the subQ route leads to less T–>E, this is due to the slower release and therefore absorption when injected subQ. He also wrote that 100mg a week SubQ leads to higher TT,FT and lower E2 than the same dose IM. Combined with less painful injections and need to inject frequently, SubQ seems optimal as a choice. I have started straight with SubQ, first set of labs showed good numbers.
Check Crislers forum and this is not being contradicted. No proof in actual research here. It is less painful though.