No, plenty of scar tissue in my quads from earlier cycles tho. Back when I used 21g needles.
1 Like
Always wondered why don’t people go pellets if they are so obsessed with “stable levels”
Also OP I do 1/2 insulin needles no matter where I inject and that includes glutes. While I don’t have a badonkadonk, I don’t really have a bony ass either. So not sure if I am going shallow IM or what but blood work shows it works. If anything maybe you are concerned about needle length and thickness so I can say atleast in my case to the glutes it works what ever it is I am doing with a 1/2 inch needle.
3 Likes
Been doing TRT SQ exclusively for years, from the start. Two shots a week. Never did a single IM injection. Works perfectly for me 
I find this too, bizarre isnt it
1 Like
Questions 123 - I have no answer.
Question 4 - done my belly with growth fine but does not like test. I get little knots and soreness for days so no sub q for me.
Question 5 - I rotate as follows: left delt right delt right quad left quad right glute left glute. No pain using 29ga 1/2 needles.
I was pinning 25mg ed for over a year. Felt fine. Numbers were good. Got tired of the ed and all the syringes being used so I pin 50mg MWF now for the past couple of months and will have blood work done to see the results.
Got my hematocrit under control donating blood among other health benefits of donating. I’m type O neg so they’re always after me for blood lol.
1 Like
Look above, systemlord seems to have tried it and liked it
Tried subq, cut my test in half and doubled My estrogen, several bloodworks, never again.
4 Likes
I think he is referring to the oral product (Jatenzo) he is using now. Though I would not be surprised if he tried twice daily injections.
3 Likes
I never did.
Therefore, why mention twice daily on a thread about injections?
Twice daily injections for a medication with an elimination half life typically between 4 and 8 days (IM vs SQ)?
Why?
1 Like
The misinformation on here regarding IM vs SQ injections and resulting serum TT levels is staggering but understandable.
The area under the curve (AUC) will be invariant to injection method (IM vs SQ) for equivalent testosterone ester dose. There can be a measurable difference in pharmacokinetic parameters between the two injection methods as I shared with @Andrewgen_Receptors previously. See this post and posts below. Typical elimination half life for TC is 4.5-7 days for IM and ~8-10 days or so with SQ.
You need to define your blood draw timing with respect to injection timing and understand how your injection frequency affects your testosterone profile vs time as @mnben87 mentioned.
See Fig 1 in linked paper below and my prior posts on pharmacokinetics of injectable testosterone.
Question 1: No.
Question 2: Yes and depends on the elimination half life of the preparation. Rough rule of thumb is 5 half lives to reach stable temporal profile.
Conclusion: most do not calculate and compare AUC between IM and SQ and hence dont understand their mean TT level will be the same on either injection protocol. What they do see is presumably a trough TT value difference and hence incorrectly conclude that SQ is superior or end up with nutty claim that 80 mg of SQ is equivalent to 100 mg IM. They miss that their peak TT was higher on IM and think they got shortchanged compared to SQ based on single time point (presumably the usual trough measurement).
I can make some plots to demonstrate your point @mnben87. But I gather most don’t want or need another chart 
. Easier to just watch a Youtube video by an expert and keep repeating the same lies over and over and over again.
6 Likes
So I have to wonder why it is that most people seem to still prefer IM injections, or feel better on them at least. Everything points to SQ being the superior method, yet many people choose IM…
Unrelated question: I have a theory that the higher BF% individuals tend to feel less result of SQ injections vs IM; SQ injections also seem to need to build up or ‘saturate’ the fat before users feel it’s effect… Do you know or think that higher BF% tends to reduce effectiveness of SQ injections? It seems consistent with what some have reported.
1 Like
Yes I would agree that an obese individual may have a much longer absorption / apparent elimination half life than standard person with reasonable BF and they may also have an elevated aromatase activity.
The more ripped the individual the closer the two methods should be WRT PK profile. For example Andres Munzer had very little SC fat to inject into and hence minimal diffusional distance in a multi compartment sense. One man’s (a fatty) SQ is another man’s (a ripped dude) IM
2 Likes
What do you mean by “Everything”? Please define. SQ and IM will have two distinct PK profiles for a given individual. Look at the scatter on TU plot in Fig. 1 above. SQ injection will have lower peak and higher trough than IM in general but same amount of T injected so AUC invariant to injection method.
1 Like
See below and TU paper above.
4 ml oil injection…i will pass:
The PK profile of serum testosterone and its two bioactive metabolites, DHT and E2 in this study indicate that the SC injections of TU displayed no significant differences from the IM route. This is consistent with PK studies of other steroids such as cortisol [19] and hydroxyprogesterone caproate [20] whereas in other studies the SC route displayed a lower and later peak serum concentration of progesterone [21] or medroxyprogesterone acetate [22]. Although Food and Drug Administration-defined bioequivalence was not formally tested, the two routes can be considered clinically comparable without the need for route-based dose adjustment. This interpretation differs from previous studies of SC injections which inferred a reduced testosterone dosage requirement by the SC route compared with the IM route [7, 10, 11] based on noncomparative studies of transgender men that did not investigate IM injections contemporaneously and relied upon historical data from other studies. Those studies used inconsistent, mostly single, sampling time points with the testosterone dosage being up-titrated according to clinical efficacy criteria, e.g., menstrual suppression [10], that may not represent effective virilization dosage for hypogonadal men [11].
Results
Fourteen transgender males (mean age, 30 ± 10 years) participated in the study. The mean hemoglobin values at the first and final visits were 160 ± 9 and 153 ± 9 g/L, respectively (p > 0.05); the mean ALT values were 18 ± 6 and 21 ± 10 IU/L (p > 0.05). Total testosterone exposure was comparable with subcutaneous versus i.m. injection (mean AUC, 1.7 ± 0.6 nmol·days/L/mg versus 1.9 ± 0.6 nmol·days/L/mg; p > 0.05). Information collected via weekly questionnaires indicated that the subcutaneous route was more tolerable, with lower self-reported scores for preinjection anxiety, pain during injection, and postinjection pain.
Conclusion
The subcutaneous route for the injection of testosterone was well tolerated and appeared to be as effective as i.m. injection in delivering equivalent TST levels, although there was wide intrapatient and interpatient variability.
Evidence Acquisition
Systematic review of available literature on SC testosterone administration including clinical trials, case series, and case reports. We also review the pharmacology of testosterone absorption after SC administration.
Evidence Synthesis
Available evidence, though limited, suggests that SC testosterone therapy in doses similar to those given via IM route results in comparable pharmacokinetics and mean serum testosterone levels. With appropriate training, patients should be able to safely self-administer testosterone esters SC with relative ease and less discomfort compared with the IM route.
2 Likes
I started IM with “harpoons”, went to subQ using 27G. I then started pinning both subQ and IM to vary locations. I notice no difference if I jab subQ or IM for a month or switch it up.
I originally got large lumps in belly area although these seem to have stopped or greatly diminished. I’m guessing perhaps I was injecting the same area too frequently and causing a reaction.
I use test E for “TOT” but have mixed in mast, HCG and Deca in the same syringes in all areas with no noticable difference.
I pin twice a week, I doubt I’d feel much different just once but belive I’m leveling out my peak and troughs a tad and hopefully slightly less stress on my body (If it wouldn’t make much difference please let me know as saving 52 single use plastic syringes would make me happy).
I haven’t recent/useful bloods as I change stuff up as I feel but I’m looking for recovery from exercise as most other things are doing pretty good I’d say. (On 150mg a week, I don’t think I’d feel much on anything except possibly recovery if I lowered the dose slowly but it takes me all my will power to not raise it massively #issues!).
To answer questions;
- Do SubQ injections take a while to build up?
Don’t know (not a med pro or particularly smart guy).
-
Why does SubQ seem to work for some but not for others?
Sorry again I cant answer but perhaps they read too much? -
Best/least painful places to inject SubQ?
Navel, love handle areas are not painful for me. -
Best/least painful places to inject IM?
NEVER in the front of the quad! It can truly suck, anywhere else seems a better option. (ventrodorsal quad never hurts for me).
The misinformation on here regarding IM vs SQ injections and resulting serum TT levels is staggering but understandable.
Tareload, you ever watch the BattleStar Gallactica remake? There was a saying repeated that I think apt,
“All this has happened before and will happen again…”
2 Likes
Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new.
4 Likes
ahhh gotya, thanks for clearing that up
1 Like
100 mg/week of TC IM vs SQ
IM modeled as 4.5 day elimination half life and 8 hr absorption half life
SQ modeled as 8 day elimination half life and 16 hr absorption half life
E7D injections and typical clearance volume…
IM is orange and SQ is blue.
If you were only looking at trough TT value then you might mistakenly conclude you are getting better results with SQ.
Here’s the stats:
IM left / SQ right
Trough SQ / Trough IM = 1.28
Going back to above claim:
100 / 80 = 1.25
Mean TT on either protocol after reaching stable temporal profiles is ~ 1000 ng/dl.
TT tested at trough? Important to always define when your TT was tested in relation to injection timepoint if you want to make sense of any relative change in protocol.
5 Likes