Stretch, by no means did I mean to imply that you or anyone was ignorant on this. For example to make it clear that I don't see it that way, I included that even Dan Duchaine wasn't getting this. And he was a very smart and knowledgeable man.
The advantages are as Reinhart said. Three slow injections (e.g., taking about 30 seconds) of only 1 mL clearly seems to be much easier on the muscle tissue than one quick injection of 3 mL. Additionally, particularly when using short acting compounds sometimes the desired injection amount is only 1 mL, so it's not even a comparison of three smaller injections vs one bigger one, but 1 easy-on-the-muscle injection vs 1 harder-on-the-muscle one. The difference results from the different injection speed.
And then the smaller needle seems to bring the scar tissue issue down completely to zero.
Lastly, the shallower required depth allows a far wider choice of injection sites, avoiding the problem of "having" to inject in about the same site or fairly close to it again even though it was used fairly recently.
The advantages are as Reinhart said. Three slow injections (e.g., taking about 30 seconds) of only 1 mL clearly seems to be much easier on the muscle tissue than one quick injection of 3 mL. Additionally, particularly when using short acting compounds sometimes the desired injection amount is only 1 mL, so it's not even a comparison of three smaller injections vs one bigger one, but 1 easy-on-the-muscle injection vs 1 harder-on-the-muscle one. The difference results from the different injection speed.
And then the smaller needle seems to bring the scar tissue issue down completely to zero.
Lastly, the shallower required depth allows a far wider choice of injection sites, avoiding the problem of "having" to inject in about the same site or fairly close to it again even though it was used fairly recently.
Last edited:
