Not sure if needle is big enough for i.m

[Bonaparte]

Read below my friend I would assume the same would apply to AAS.


Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics after subcutaneous and intramuscular injection of human chorionic gonadotropin.
Fertil Steril. 1991 Aug;56(2):225-9.

Saal W, Glowania HJ, Hengst W, Happ J.

Bundeswehrzentralkrankenhaus, Koblenz, Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The pharmacokinetics and efficiency of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) after subcutaneous (SC) injection was to clarify in comparison with the intramuscular (IM) mode of administration. DESIGN: In a prospective study, the pharmacokinetics of hCG and the response of serum testosterone (T), luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) after an IM and SC injection of 5,000 IU hCG were evaluated up to 144 hours in two randomized groups. SETTING: The study was carried out in a clinical dermatology department providing tertiary care. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four healthy male volunteers with a mean age of 22.7 +/- 4.3 years were divided into two groups. INTERVENTIONS: Human chorionic gonadotropin (5,000 IU) was injected IM or SC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Serum concentration of /b-hCG, T, LH, and FSH were evaluated after IM and SC administration of hCG. Differences between the two groups were determined by t-test. RESULTS: Compared with [intramuscular] administration of hCG, peak serum drug concentration was significantly delayed (P = 0.01) and serum half-life was prolonged (P = 0.01) after [subcutaneous] injection; however, [testosterone], LH, and FSH responses were identical. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous application of 5,000 IU hCG is as effective as [intramuscular] administration in terms of [testosterone production].
PMID: 1712735 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

You just reinforced his point that it will delay absorption, not lower it.

[HawaiianPride.]

You just reinforced his point that it will delay absorption, not lower it.

Wrong article, I'll have to dig in my files to find the right one.

Bon, or themoreyouknow, got any studies citing the absorption rate being delayed?

[themoreyouknow]

Wrong article, I'll have to dig in my files to find the right one.

Bon, or themoreyouknow, got any studies citing the absorption rate being delayed?

nothing ive seen..just basing my information off what we were told pharmacology class a few years back

[Bonaparte]

Bon, or themoreyouknow, got any studies citing the absorption rate being delayed?

You mean besides the one you posted? lol
I don't have any studies on hand, but it is hardly counter-intuitive. You have more veins and blood-flow in your muscles than in your fat tissue.

[tjax03]

You mean besides the one you posted? lol
I don't have any studies on hand, but it is hardly counter-intuitive. You have more veins and blood-flow in your muscles than in your fat tissue.

There are definitely newer studies which have shown that sub-q is just as effective as IM. I don't have the personally, but have I have seen them posted on other boards. The main issue from what I can tell with sub-q is that the volume one can inject is more limited because the oil tends to form slightly painful lumps under the skin which can be irritating. Other than that though it seems good to go.

[Bonaparte]

There are definitely newer studies which have shown that sub-q is just as effective as IM.

I am well aware. I didn't say it is less effective, just that it absorbs a bit slower, due to a lack of blood vessels.