WTF? Sub Q Test C shots for TRT?

**AnabolicBoy1981** · 09-23-2011, 12:53 PM

My dad just saw an endo, and he prescribed him test c and to do it sub q. Hes aware that its not studied, but he finds he gets results with his patients that way.
Anyone herard of this? Im concerened about that route of administration yielding a too high estrogen level being that its going through the fat. As we know patches and gels yield a higher DHT ration as compared to an IM shot, BECAUSE theres 5 alpha reductase in the skin. So being that we're going through the fat, and fat produces aromatase, might we have too much estro?

**GotNoBlueMilk** · 09-23-2011, 01:00 PM

It is studied, and the results showed that subq was good, with results matching IM. Also, the aromatase is inside the cell, not intercellular fluid. After you inject subq, the Test ester is dispersed throughout the body an doesn't just sit there. Same as it is dispersed throughout the body when you do IM.

Anyway, all of this is of little importance if you look at the study results. There was no additional convertion to E2, and Test levels were the same too.

Now, some people like IM better for various reasons. One reason is that some people get a reaction to the oil the Test is immulsified in when they inject subq. They get a bump that develops 12-24 hours later and it itches. Also, if you are injecting a lot it can initially produce a lump until the ester disperses.

**bass** · 09-23-2011, 01:32 PM

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...56#post5757556

**funkymonk** · 09-23-2011, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by bass

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...56#post5757556

Came in to post this.

**steroid.com 1** · 09-23-2011, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by bass

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...56#post5757556

Thanks B!

**steroid.com 1** · 09-23-2011, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by GotNoBlueMilk

It is studied, and the results showed that subq was good, with results matching IM. Also, the aromatase is inside the cell, not intercellular fluid. After you inject subq, the Test ester is dispersed throughout the body an doesn't just sit there. Same as it is dispersed throughout the body when you do IM.

Anyway, all of this is of little importance if you look at the study results. There was no additional convertion to E2, and Test levels were the same too.

Now, some people like IM better for various reasons. One reason is that some people get a reaction to the oil the Test is immulsified in when they inject subq. They get a bump that develops 12-24 hours later and it itches. Also, if you are injecting a lot it can initially produce a lump until the ester disperses.

Well said GNBM! You're an asset to this board!

**AnabolicBoy1981** · 09-26-2011, 11:23 AM

Interesting, but as I thought it would change the release rate. But I'm glad the e2 isn't worse

**steroid.com 1** · 09-26-2011, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by AnabolicBoy1981

Interesting, but as I thought it would change the release rate. But I'm glad the e2 isn't worse

No, the ester is cleaved at the same rate whether IM or SQ...

**bigboy67** · 09-26-2011, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by gdevine

No, the ester is cleaved at the same rate whether IM or SQ...

Hey GD, if there is no difference in the release rate, doesnt increase estro aromatization, and keeps Test serum levels as level as IM, then why wouldnt that be the gold standard? Just wondering as I would totally switch to SubQ from IM to avoid the chances of deep muscle infection

**AnabolicBoy1981** · 09-26-2011, 05:01 PM

NO there IS a difference in the release rate. It's slower.doest say by how much tho. If I'm the peaks are at 3-4days on c and e IM hence weekly or bi weekly shots I wonder where the peaks are for SC. Even a deltoid compared to a glute has a slower release time

**steroid.com 1** · 09-26-2011, 07:54 PM

I stand (somewhat) corrected...this is what happens when you take an office break jump in the forum real quick and don't think things through.

There is "some" evidence that suggests that SQ can be cleaved at a slower pace equating to slower absorption, less Test spikes and less E2 spikes thereby providing lower E2 and SHBG overall. This, in theory, should provide for more Free Test. This was what was concluded in the Canada which I believe is the only one of its kind.

With SQ injections the upside provides less chance of hitting a vein (which sucks), deep muscle infections, ongoing scar tissue...

The thing to remember is it's not where and how you inject (as I think it rather nominal and up to the man), but rather; the frequency and amount you inject that is going to have the biggest outcome for you.

**bass** · 09-26-2011, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by gdevine

I stand (somewhat) corrected...this is what happens when you take an office break jump in the forum real quick and don't think things through.

There is "some" evidence that suggests that SQ can be cleaved at a slower pace equating to slower absorption, less Test spikes and less E2 spikes thereby providing lower E2 and SHBG overall. This, in theory, should provide for more Free Test. This was what was concluded in the Canada which I believe is the only one of its kind.

With SQ injections the upside provides less chance of hitting a vein (which sucks), deep muscle infections, ongoing scar tissue...

The thing to remember is it's not where and how you inject (as I think it rather nominal and up to the man), but rather; the frequency and amount you inject that is going to have the biggest outcome for you.

how about some details on that GD? how much and how often? also where and what angle?

**THINKBIG** · 09-28-2011, 12:49 AM

what gauge needle would you use?

**HitIt** · 09-28-2011, 09:14 AM

when i was using test e subq and at 200mg a week my total and free test levels were beyond the reference...using less now but that proved to me the absorption via subq is just fine....at 20UI for 100mg of test, why even bother with a typical syringe and needle...i use .5ml insulin syringe with a .5 inch 29 gauge needle....drawing is slow, but again, it's a minute amount of oil

i'd subq up to .5 ml, but any more than that and i'd go im...i tried deca subq (.5 ml) but that ester doesn't absorb nearly as readily as the enanthate ester. enanthate absorbs almost as quickly as water based subq injections for me whereas the deca ester depot stayed for a few days

**Corpsman** · 09-28-2011, 07:58 PM

I can't imagine how slow it would be injecting an oil sub-q, and also couldn't imagine injecting a cc or more of oil sub q

**HitIt** · 09-29-2011, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Corpsman

I can't imagine how slow it would be injecting an oil sub-q, and also couldn't imagine injecting a cc or more of oil sub q

injecting subq is faster than a regular syringe for me..the small diameter of the insulin pin/plunger makes shiort work of injections...it's drawing the oil through a 29g needle that is slow...but, 20UI (100mg TE) only takes 30sec for me..that's not an eternity

and with trt doses you wouldn't need to inject more than .4 cc (40UI, 100mg TE) as that would be considered the high end of trt doses (200mg/wk) (given 250mg/ml testosterone )

**THINKBIG** · 09-29-2011, 11:50 PM

right now I'm doing 100mg test cyp every 5 days. It definitely helps with the 2 day lows I feel inj once a week. should I still do it every 5 days sub q.