Am I really out to the loop?!?!

[Type-IIx]

Okay, I'm having an argument with a person about pinning AAS. I've always known that AAS is pinned intramuscular. I've also always known that pinning subcutaneously that you don't get the same results or it's pretty much a complete waste. I know that HGH, HCG and other peptides are pinned subcutaneously. Am I missing something here because he just seems like an idiot to me. This is his argument.

"I’m not trying to argue with you. You can subq test or any steroid. You’re out of the loop

Subcutaneous (SubQ) testosterone injections are becoming more popular than intramuscular (IM) injections for several reasons:
Safety
SubQ injections have a lower risk of injecting testosterone oil into a blood vessel.
Pain
SubQ injections are usually less painful because they use smaller gauge needles and the testosterone is often compounded in a thinner oil.
Ease of use
SubQ injections into the thigh or abdomen are easier to self-administer than IM injections into the glute or hip.
Muscle damage
SubQ injections cause less muscle damage and scar tissue.
Testosterone release
SubQ injections release testosterone more slowly, which can lead to fewer spikes in estrogen, DHT, and hematocrit.
Tolerance
SubQ injections are more tolerable, with lower self-reported scores for pain and anxiety before, during, and after the injection"

I discuss the actual trade-offs to subcutaneous injection of AAS in this podcast:


View: https://type-iix.podbean.com/e/ep-006-subcutaneous-pros-dorian-yates-1st-cycle-design-review-coachs-corner-hack-vs-pendulum-vs-v-squats-what-makes-testosterone-unique/


To be frank, you are more correct than he is. But there are justifications for subcutaneous use.

One primary example is a guy I coach who passes out when he so much as glanced at the third party who was doing his pin while in the process... but has switched happily to subcutaneous, giving him total dominion over his own administration schedule, without issue. That's simply, tolerability - but a powerful psychological factor causing total intolerability - fairly unusual, but not unheard of.

Other benefits include reduced erythropoiesis, or an attenuated increase to hematocrit/hemoglobin, blood viscosity or thickness - risk of thromboembolic events.. These are always still low in absolute terms with AAS without an underlying pathology, however.

Reduced aromatization, so lower E2.

Comfort: though there's still pain and redness at the injection site, some people get practically crippled by formulations like Sustanon, for example.

BUT, this is at the expense of:

Potency, efficacy, anabolism.

And this is ALL due to slower absorption and reduced bioavailability, or blood free androgen area-under-the-curve.

 

[IronMetal_2]

I discuss the actual trade-offs to subcutaneous injection of AAS in this podcast:


View: https://type-iix.podbean.com/e/ep-006-subcutaneous-pros-dorian-yates-1st-cycle-design-review-coachs-corner-hack-vs-pendulum-vs-v-squats-what-makes-testosterone-unique/


To be frank, you are more correct than he is. But there are justifications for subcutaneous use.

One primary example is a guy I coach who passes out when he so much as glanced at the third party who was doing his pin while in the process... but has switched happily to subcutaneous, giving him total dominion over his own administration schedule, without issue. That's simply, tolerability - but a powerful psychological factor causing total intolerability - fairly unusual, but not unheard of.

Other benefits include reduced erythropoiesis, or an attenuated increase to hematocrit/hemoglobin, blood viscosity or thickness - risk of thromboembolic events.. These are always still low in absolute terms with AAS without an underlying pathology, however.

Reduced aromatization, so lower E2.

Comfort: though there's still pain and redness at the injection site, some people get practically crippled by formulations like Sustanon, for example.

BUT, this is at the expense of:

Potency, efficacy, anabolism.

And this is ALL due to slower absorption and reduced bioavailability, or blood free androgen area-under-the-curve.

Is reduced aromatization really the case?

Pharmacokinetic Profile of Subcutaneous Testosterone Enanthate Delivered via a Novel, Prefilled Single‐Use Autoinjector: A Phase II Study - PMC

Hypogonadism is one of the most common male endocrine problems. Although many treatments are currently available, unmet need exists for new testosterone (T) replacement therapies that are simple to administer and use, are safe, and mimic physiologic ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I remember looking at this study wondering why 100 mg subq test basically reached same avg e2 levels than 200 mg im test.

Maybe you can chime in, thanks!

 

[Eddie.]

Wondering if SubQ would be ideal with MCT oil since it’s thin and could dissipate quickly. But can you do 1ml with the 1/2 in delt or quad for that ? Idk

It doesn't matter what carrier oil is in it. After a year of trying both methods and from what i've seen here on the board from other guys, you either handle it or not. I don't remember anyone saying that oil gave me welts, redness and pain while this oil didn't.

I was pinning subc Test E in castor oil through 29G slin pin without heating the oil at all, it was the thickest oil you can get and still no bad reaction. Everything was smooth, no pain, nothing. I've tried grapeseed oil, sesame oil, currently doing test E in MCT and Masteron in sesame oil. Zero issues.

I do my "blasts" intramuscular and when i cruise in-between i switch to subc to prevent scar tissue build up and because it's 10 times easier pinning subc than IM. No need to heat the oil, no need to target a specific area you just stab wherever you have some fat and that's it. In just 4 months of doing IM shots i hit a nerve 3 times, thankfully no damage but that sudden muscle spam/twich was not funny at all. You don't have these kind of issues with subc.

 

[Rakusa]

I discuss the actual trade-offs to subcutaneous injection of AAS in this podcast:


View: https://type-iix.podbean.com/e/ep-006-subcutaneous-pros-dorian-yates-1st-cycle-design-review-coachs-corner-hack-vs-pendulum-vs-v-squats-what-makes-testosterone-unique/


To be frank, you are more correct than he is. But there are justifications for subcutaneous use.

One primary example is a guy I coach who passes out when he so much as glanced at the third party who was doing his pin while in the process... but has switched happily to subcutaneous, giving him total dominion over his own administration schedule, without issue. That's simply, tolerability - but a powerful psychological factor causing total intolerability - fairly unusual, but not unheard of.

Other benefits include reduced erythropoiesis, or an attenuated increase to hematocrit/hemoglobin, blood viscosity or thickness - risk of thromboembolic events.. These are always still low in absolute terms with AAS without an underlying pathology, however.

Reduced aromatization, so lower E2.

Comfort: though there's still pain and redness at the injection site, some people get practically crippled by formulations like Sustanon, for example.

BUT, this is at the expense of:

Potency, efficacy, anabolism.

And this is ALL due to slower absorption and reduced bioavailability, or blood free androgen area-under-the-curve.

What do you think of that? It's an interesting post.


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Testosterone/comments/1h51c4j/70mgweek_im_vs_subq_results/


A guy did bloodtesting twice:

SubQ- 70mg/week, everyday dosing.
IM- 70mg/week, everyday dosing.

So he only changed the ROA, but test and free test was higher on SC, which is against the consensus.

Sadly the bloodwork doesn't include e2, but you could assume e2 raises in relation to total test at 1:1, so double test, double e2, or not?

//Edit: AFAIK there are no studies that actually support SC = lower, but more steady levels. I haven't looked into the studies for trans people however, that include SC.

 

[Eddie.]

Is reduced aromatization really the case?

Pharmacokinetic Profile of Subcutaneous Testosterone Enanthate Delivered via a Novel, Prefilled Single‐Use Autoinjector: A Phase II Study - PMC

Hypogonadism is one of the most common male endocrine problems. Although many treatments are currently available, unmet need exists for new testosterone (T) replacement therapies that are simple to administer and use, are safe, and mimic physiologic ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I remember looking at this study wondering why 100 mg subq test basically reached same avg e2 levels than 200 mg im test.

Maybe you can chime in, thanks!

Interesting, there's also this side.

Comparison of Outcomes for Hypogonadal Men Treated with Intramuscular Testosterone Cypionate versus Subcutaneous Testosterone Enanthate - PubMed

While IM-TC and SCTE-AI provide a significant increase in TT levels, SCTE-AI is associated with lower levels of post-therapy HCT and E2 compared to IM-TC after adjusting for significant covariates. SCTE-AI is an effective testosterone delivery system with a potentially preferable safety profile...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What do you think of that? It's an interesting post.


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Testosterone/comments/1h51c4j/70mgweek_im_vs_subq_results/


A guy did bloodtesting twice:

SubQ- 70mg/week, everyday dosing.
IM- 70mg/week, everyday dosing.

So he only changed the ROA, but test and free test was higher on SC, which is against the consensus.

Sadly the bloodwork doesn't include e2, but you could assume e2 raises in relation to total test at 1:1, so double test, double e2, or not?

There are at least 2 guys here saying the same thing. If i'm not mistaken @buck is one that has tested it and found to be true.

 

[Rakusa]

Interesting, there's also this side.

Comparison of Outcomes for Hypogonadal Men Treated with Intramuscular Testosterone Cypionate versus Subcutaneous Testosterone Enanthate - PubMed

While IM-TC and SCTE-AI provide a significant increase in TT levels, SCTE-AI is associated with lower levels of post-therapy HCT and E2 compared to IM-TC after adjusting for significant covariates. SCTE-AI is an effective testosterone delivery system with a potentially preferable safety profile...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There are at least 2 guys here saying the same thing. If i'm not mistaken @buck is one that has tested it and found to be true.

correct me if I'm am wrong, but if I understand this correctly:

Post-TRT, both cohorts had significant increases in trough TT compared to their baseline levels (IM-TC: 313.6 ng/dL to 536.4 ng/dL, p <0.001; SCTE-AI: 246.6 ng/dL to 552.8 ng/dL, p <0.001)

The IM groups through levels where lower than the SC group (536 vs 552 ng/dl. So SC provided higher plasma levels?

I think this is a really shitty and lazy study. It doesn't include much data. Also it's biased heavily towards the product they are marketing.

 

[Eddie.]

correct me if I'm am wrong, but if I understand this correctly:

Post-TRT, both cohorts had significant increases in trough TT compared to their baseline levels (IM-TC: 313.6 ng/dL to 536.4 ng/dL, p <0.001; SCTE-AI: 246.6 ng/dL to 552.8 ng/dL, p <0.001)

The IM groups through levels where lower than the SC group (536 vs 552 ng/dl. So SC provided higher plasma levels?

I think this is a really shitty and lazy study. It doesn't include much data. Also it's biased heavily towards the product they are marketing.

Man, i'm not a scientist and i don't do much research but i don't think pubmed would publish a shitty study.

Also, i attached this study to show the effect of subc in e2 compared to IM. But regardless of what this study is saying i told you there are 2 guys experiencing the same thing about the difference in serum TT levels between SC and IM. I just don't remember who's the other one besides buck..i'll try to dig up the posts.

 

[Rakusa]

I think the study only reliably shows that SC= lower peaks, higher through.

In regards to estrogen ist claims

SCTE-AI was independently associated with lower post-therapy E2 (p <0.001) and HCT (p <0.001).

Keep in mind „post therapy“ is 12 weeks after treatment. So SCT-AI only had lower test levels after 12 weeks and as a result lower e2. Cherry-picking to the max.

Maybe someone else can correct me if I understand the data incorrectly. Not native speaker here.

 

[ripper908]

Doesnt matter

Fouad Abiad had a dr on his podcast and he said it doesnt matter

if anything subq absorbs much more slowly leading to more stable levels

I tried subq and didnt care for it. too many lumps and redness post injection

 

[lukiss96]

I keep on repeating myself, but aside from specifics and scientific stuff, I have used both methods without problems.

This is such an individual thing, that I can't help but say it again - we're all different. Person A is not person B and person C is neither. As complicated as it sounds, it is what it is in reality. Human body is beyond science, not yet well understood. That's controversial statement because it is.

Personally, I can perfectly tolerate most injectable of pretty much any carrier oil up until 1.5-1.6ml volume Subq. Yes that's right. It is probably absorbed slower, but it works just fine and I dig it. Whenever I exceed that and go 2ml, I get a lump and feel like it takes quite a bit longer. It's all about learning your own body, like @Type-IIx said. Better is very, very subjective and needs more evaluation before making a decision.

Edit: some typo fix.

 

[Ghoul]

The other question is why do we want "stable" levels anyway? Natural production is pulsatile, not stable.

I can understand splitting doses to avoid peaks that are too high and troughs too low, excessively supraphysiologic, to prevent e2 side effects or crashes in energy, but I suspect a little "roller coaster" effect feels, and is, more natural.

 

[Eddie.]

The other question is why do we want "stable" levels anyway? Natural production is pulsatile, not stable.

I can understand splitting doses to avoid peaks that are too high and troughs too low, excessively supraphysiologic, to prevent e2 side effects or crashes in energy, but so suspect a little "roller coaster" effect feels, and is, more natural.

Because the more levels fluctuate, more side effects occur, it's not just e2. Not to everybody ofc, there are guys handling insane amounts of tren while others anything more than 150mg of test and they have side effects.

Also, stable levels (meaning not very high peaks) will result in lower convertion to DHT (i guess you know this already) and lower risk for spiking up HCT.

On the other hand..Increasing HCT means some sort of anabolism, as well as increasing DHT. So i'm guessing if anyone wants the most out of the least then ultra stable levels might not be the best but something in between daily pinning and once a week bolus perhaps is the best.

 

[Ghoul]

Because the more levels fluctuate, more side effects occur, it's not just e2. Not to everybody ofc, there are guys handling insane amounts of tren while others anything more than 150mg of test and they have side effects.

Also, stable levels (meaning not very high peaks) will result in lower convertion to DHT (i guess you know this already) and lower risk for spiking up HCT.

I guess I should've distinguished between TRT and cycle or "TRT+" use,

Provided the highest peak doesn't exceed the physiologic range, there shouldn't be any more side effects than those induced by natural production.

I wonder if it's considered medically acceptable, for those under doctor guided TRT, with infrequent injections, like once every two weeks, to exceed physiologic levels shortly after the shot is administered, or if doses are chosen to prevent that (and really awful low levels reached just before the next shot).

 

[Eddie.]

I guess I should've distinguished between TRT and cycle or "TRT+" use,

Provided the highest peak doesn't exceed the physiologic range, there shouldn't be any more side effects than those induced by natural production.

I wonder if it's considered medically acceptable, for those under doctor guided TRT, with infrequent injections, like once every two weeks, to exceed physiologic levels shortly after the shot is administered, or if doses are chosen to prevent that (and really awful low levels reached just before the next shot).

Yes, this is a different story (or maybe not so different).

Having daily levels of lets say 800ng/dl with daily administration you can have a baseline and know exactly where you are with a given amount of testosterone.

If you have a bolus shot (or even 2) per week, next day you'll be skyhigh and the day of administration before pin you'll be low. So, how can you actually adjust your dose and from which day you'll get a reference regarding serum testsosterone? It varies from person to person because everybody metabolizes drugs differently, considering that even the spot you chose to pin plays a role on how fast the absorption is.

Now for those who cycle if the volume of oil is big it's impossible to do one shot per week and in many cases even two, so frequent pinning is required to just make it doable and "stable" levels is just a bonus. I guess it's not that different from having 4000ng/dl every day than having a peak of 5000 and a trough of 3000, it's supraphysiological already and the % is not that much compared to a peak of 1100 and a trough of 400.

Personally even when i cruise and test is "low" i never do less than 3 shots per week, just for the peace of mind..

 

[Grey Spartan]

Personally even when i cruise and test is "low" i never do less than 3 shots per week, just for the peace of mind..

And this is the kicker "peace of mind". I have tried all manor of injection frequencies, IM and SubQ. I figured why not, we are all different so might as well give them all a go to see what works best for me.

The take away for me was how I felt not what some chart, Doc or influencer said.

I personally feel best on 1 to 2 injections a week and landed on twice a week. This affords me a set schedule I can adhere to, on either a blast or TRT cruise. As for the SubQ, I felt like I wasn't taking anything and my Test levels came back lower even on the same dose. Now when I cruise I do shallow IM and when I blast I do deep IM.

I have always thought doing oil SubQ was goofy since the oil was made for IM.

 

[Eddie.]

And this is the kicker "peace of mind". I have tried all manor of injection frequencies, IM and SubQ. I figured why not, we are all different so might as well give them all a go to see what works best for me.

The take away for me was how I felt not what some chart, Doc or influencer said.

I personally feel best on 1 to 2 injections a week and landed on twice a week. This affords me a set schedule I can adhere to, on either a blast or TRT cruise. As for the SubQ, I felt like I wasn't taking anything and my Test levels came back lower even on the same dose. Now when I cruise I do shallow IM and when I blast I do deep IM.

I have always thought doing oil SubQ was goofy since the oil was made for IM.

Yeah, you present some facts and i agree in many of this. When i first started i went from zero shots to everyday microdosing, because i had higher bodyfat and was scared of converting to estrogen, acne etc. That way it became a habbit for me. I haven't missed a shot, when my schedule is tight i backload the previous day and i literally do 30' to complete my shot. Currently doing MWF and i've never passed 3 days without injecting.

From one perspective it would be nice to let my levels crash, just to "know" how it feels so i can understand more what is it doing and what's the effect on me. I don't see any difference between MWF and every day, i'm just going everyday because i wanted to keep oil volume below 1ml with each shot.

Now for subc, again i never notice a difference on feels, performance and physique between this and IM so i'm doing what's easier for me and less detrimental to the body. IM was studied and is still the tried and tested method but science is evolving and more research is done lately regarding subc. We also take pills that were made for female breast cancer and chemicals intented for making fertilizer, so this is not an argument.

 

[Astartes]

Okay, I'm having an argument with a person about pinning AAS. I've always known that AAS is pinned intramuscular. I've also always known that pinning subcutaneously that you don't get the same results or it's pretty much a complete waste. I know that HGH, HCG and other peptides are pinned subcutaneously. Am I missing something here because he just seems like an idiot to me. This is his argument.

"I’m not trying to argue with you. You can subq test or any steroid. You’re out of the loop

Subcutaneous (SubQ) testosterone injections are becoming more popular than intramuscular (IM) injections for several reasons:
Safety
SubQ injections have a lower risk of injecting testosterone oil into a blood vessel.
Pain
SubQ injections are usually less painful because they use smaller gauge needles and the testosterone is often compounded in a thinner oil.
Ease of use
SubQ injections into the thigh or abdomen are easier to self-administer than IM injections into the glute or hip.
Muscle damage
SubQ injections cause less muscle damage and scar tissue.
Testosterone release
SubQ injections release testosterone more slowly, which can lead to fewer spikes in estrogen, DHT, and hematocrit.
Tolerance
SubQ injections are more tolerable, with lower self-reported scores for pain and anxiety before, during, and after the injection"

Let me make this simple.

Forget all the minutia … Sub-Q has less blood flow.

It also spreads more and doesn’t have muscle tissue to break it (bolus) up and assist absorption.

Hence larger volumes of oil and hormone cause greater irritation.

That is the crux of the matter.

If you are on low dose or low volume TRT, TRT+ or whatever and need a break or just like it … just do it.

 

[Type-IIx]

//Edit: AFAIK there are no studies that actually support SC = lower, but more steady levels. I haven't looked into the studies for trans people however, that include SC.

Here's a couple. [1]. [2]. [3].

Not only are there multiple studies supporting that reduced aromatization and erythropoiesis occur given subcutaneously, we even know why. It's because "absorption for the s.c. route is slower than the i.m. because of a low surface area, whereas s.c. lag time is short due perhaps to the relatively high lymphatic floor or short-lymph vessel (but these aspects are understudied)." [4].

If anyone's critique of the first study had mentioned its failure to pre-register any measured outcome, one-way cross-over design (switched from but not back to s.c.), or short wash-out phase, I might give a shit... but if you barely speak English and you simply just don't like the results of a study, your characterizing it as low quality without elaboration or substantive argument gets you a D+ mark on this board...

[1] Choi EJ, Xu P, Barham D, El-Khatib FM, Yafi FA, Kavoussi PK. Comparison of Outcomes for Hypogonadal Men Treated with Intramuscular Testosterone Cypionate versus Subcutaneous Testosterone Enanthate. J Urol. 2022 Mar;207(3):677-683. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002301
[2] Wilson, D. M., Kiang, T. K. L., & Ensom, M. H. H. (2018). Pharmacokinetics, safety, and patient acceptability of subcutaneous versus intramuscular testosterone injection for gender-affirming therapy: A pilot study. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 75(6), 351–358. doi:10.2146/ajhp170160
[3] Nasimeh Yazdani, Stacy Matthews Branch. Daily subcutaneous testosterone for management of testosterone deficiency. Front. Biosci. (Elite Ed) 2018, 10(2), 334–343. Daily subcutaneous testosterone for management of testosterone deficiency
[4} Kalicharan, R. W., Schot, P., & Vromans, H. (2016). Fundamental understanding of drug absorption from a parenteral oil depot. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 83, 19–27. doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2015.12.011

Why hadn't "you looked into those who are trans however," too physiologically different from an enhanced bodybuilder to draw any conclusions?

 

[Type-IIx]

What do you think of that? It's an interesting post.


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Testosterone/comments/1h51c4j/70mgweek_im_vs_subq_results/


A guy did bloodtesting twice:

SubQ- 70mg/week, everyday dosing.
IM- 70mg/week, everyday dosing.

So he only changed the ROA, but test and free test was higher on SC, which is against the consensus.

Sadly the bloodwork doesn't include e2, but you could assume e2 raises in relation to total test at 1:1, so double test, double e2, or not?

//Edit: AFAIK there are no studies that actually support SC = lower, but more steady levels. I haven't looked into the studies for trans people however, that include SC.

I think Reddit is so utterly devoid of anything approaching information that I discount it off-hand until proven otherwise.

What is this? Some guy's bloodwork?

Mmmm.... K?

 

[Type-IIx]

I keep on repeating myself, but aside from specifics and scientific stuff, I have used both methods without problems.

This is such an individual thing, that I can't help but say it again - we're all different. Person A is not person B and person C is neither. As complicated as it sounds, it is what it is in reality. Human body is beyond science, not yet well understood. That's controversial statement because it is.

Personally, I can perfectly tolerate most injectable of pretty much any carrier oil up until 1.5-1.6ml volume Subq. Yes that's right. It is probably absorbed slower, but it works just fine and I dig it. Whenever I exceed that and go 2ml, I get a lump and feel like it takes quite a bit longer. It's all about learning your own body, like @Type-IIx said. Better is very, very subjective and needs more evaluation before making a decision.

Edit: some typo fix.

I just want to qualify this point – the significance of inter-individuality – to reiterate that the exception does generally prove the rule – and we can still speak in terms of generalities. Avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.