Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    booku is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    218

    Pharmacokinetic Profile of 50 Mg and 100 Mg Doses of Subcutaneous Testosterone E

    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/1...RE.12.SUN-0056

    very interesting 2014 study, thoughts?

  2. #2
    ripped_82's Avatar
    ripped_82 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    626
    Very interesting results related to the varying numbers. It would be interesting to know where the sub q injection sight was since many on this board have stated that location of the injection site makes a difference with their readings.

    I will say that my sub q @ 100mg/week split 2X/week did not give me a sense of well being in comparison to how I felt with the same approach via IM. Perhaps this study explains my experience given the swing in numbers when you compare a 1 time 100mg dose/week.

    I also recall reading blood work results from those on this forum when they compared IM vs Sub Q, and the majority had higher levels via IM. I wonder if the large Sub Q dose is the way to know given the study results
    Last edited by ripped_82; 11-10-2014 at 04:31 AM.

  3. #3
    APIs's Avatar
    APIs is offline Knowledgeable Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Avoiding newbies @ gym...
    Posts
    1,321
    While an interesting product, the last paragraph presents one basis of the study which is; to avoid "treatment-related mood swings" observed with IM on a 1-2 times per month schedule. These idiots are ignoring the bio-availability of Test E from the get-go. No worthwhile practitioner today would prescribe Test E on such an outdated dosing model and they also make the assumption that we as patients cant possibly perform IM injections ourselves. It reads like a half-ass study funded by the developers of Novel Jet-Injector...

  4. #4
    booku is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by APIs View Post
    While an interesting product, the last paragraph presents one basis of the study which is; to avoid "treatment-related mood swings" observed with IM on a 1-2 times per month schedule. These idiots are ignoring the bio-availability of Test E from the get-go. No worthwhile practitioner today would prescribe Test E on such an outdated dosing model and they also make the assumption that we as patients cant possibly perform IM injections ourselves. It reads like a half-ass study funded by the developers of Novel Jet-Injector...
    yeah totally agree always financial/secondary motives, its a shame they didn't do twice per week injections and say how the injection was done and also compare with IM, would make sense to compare to the gold standard

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •