New study on subQ vs. Intramuscular

**DCannon** · 03-30-2009, 10:14 PM

I found an article on subQ vs. Intramuscular, here's an excerpt...

Just as the early adult users often suffered side effects due to excessive doses when they tried to extrapolate the children’s therapeutic dosage (by weight), the idea of injecting subcutaneously is an example of adults not receiving the full benefits of GH by mimicking the pediatric experience. German endocrinologists and researchers teamed up to investigate the effects of gender, dose and route of administration (subcutaneous versus intramuscular) on the availability and effectiveness of GH. Ten male and 10 female subjects were recruited; subjects were healthy and athletic young adults— the doses provided were three to five times the recommended adult replacement dose, roughly nine to 20 units for the males. The subjects received three separate injections: ~9 units subcutaneously, ~9 units intramuscularly and ~20 units subcutaneously. Data obtained by analyzing the subjects’ blood over the next 36 hours revealed interesting results that might offer insight to users of GH.

Comparing the ~9 unit doses, it was clear that intramuscular injections provided significantly higher peaks in GH concentration and greater total-delivered dose.12 In fact, the male subjects received nearly 50 percent more total GH from the same dose when the hormone was injected into muscle as opposed to subcutaneous fat. While GH delivery was vastly improved with intramuscular injections, IGF-1 concentrations were no different between subcutaneous versus intramuscular injections following the same (single) dose. Thus, it is unclear at this time whether intramuscular administration would provide any anabolic or tissue repair benefits. Hopefully, further research will clarify this point with long-term studies.

Here's the link to the article
http://www.*******************.com/c.../view/1465/51/

I think I might try IM for a while and see if I feel a difference.

**jfalco** · 03-30-2009, 11:29 PM

Why? Study seems to say there is no point.

**DCannon** · 03-31-2009, 12:25 AM

This is some more of the article, since it won't let me post the link.

As most preschoolers learn, boys are different from girls. In the above study, men cleared GH from their system more quickly. At first, this might seem a disadvantage, but in fact, it appears to be the basis for some of the physical advantages males display. Intramuscular GH not only peaked higher, but also earlier— so, despite being cleared more rapidly, a greater total amount of GH is delivered when injected into muscle.12 Not only does the body benefit from receiving more total drug/hormone, the cells of the body are able to prime themselves to respond to the next dose of GH more quickly as the drug is cleared. GH triggers responses in cells by binding to receptors on the surface, which activate a series of enzymes inside the cell.13 Ultimately, the reactions send chemical factors to the DNA to turn on growth-promoting processes.

The GH response sequence doesn’t always happen in a linear relationship; in other words, a little GH does not produce a little response in some reactions (GH is involved in over 400 metabolic processes).14 There appears to be a threshold concentration (when the cell is fully primed) that triggers the biochemical cascade in gender-specific reactions and once that level is passed, higher doses cause greater response.15 However, uncontrolled or continuous growth, enticing as that sounds, is neither healthy nor beneficial. To prevent the cell from being stressed with responding to another growth signal too soon, feedback suppressors are generated inside the cell at the same time the cell is building protein and burning fat.13 By clearing out GH more quickly, males also clear out the suppressor blockade, allowing the cells to respond to the next pulse of GH more quickly.

Perhaps the time is overdue in this article to remind the reader that GH is most effective when released in pulses, not as a steady, continuous signal. So although it was not seen with the single-dose study, it is likely that intramuscular GH would offer a more “lifelike” signal and possibly greater physiologic benefits over time.

This is what made me consider trying IM for a while. Do you guys think it's not worth it?

**DCannon** · 03-31-2009, 12:48 AM

"Also, the standard method of administering GH, via a subcutaneous injection, may not be the best method. A higher peak, greater total amount and faster clearance occurred when GH was injected intramuscularly. The downside to this is a greater risk of injury (striking a nerve, injecting into a blood vessel, suffering a deep tissue infection), more pain and potential interference with anabolic steroid injections in those who use the two drugs during the same period."

PT · 03-31-2009, 02:23 AM

i have never seen blood tests results to prove either way is better but would love to.

**Charger527** · 03-31-2009, 04:05 AM

would IM injections also cause more localized growth??

**G-Force** · 03-31-2009, 12:46 PM

this totally contradicts the article i just posted up lol

who are we to believe?

**DCannon** · 03-31-2009, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by G-Force

this totally contradicts the article i just posted up lol

who are we to believe?

I know what you mean, I've read lots of stuff that keeps contradicting other things i've read. I guess you just got to try different angles and see what works best for you.