IM vs SubQ study

Nixter

Well-known member
Trusted Member
"Two hundred thirty-two men took part in the UC study. Baseline levels were recorded for all men in each of the four measurement areas, and then again at 6-12 weeks post-treatment. The results showed that men who underwent SubQ injections of testosterone resulted in a 14% greater increase in total testosterone levels than the testosterone level of IM patients. SubQ patients also resulted in a 41% lower HCT post-therapy than IM patients and 26.5% lower E2 levels. For both groups of men, there were no elevated levels of PSA."

 
Thanks for sharing! I can't access the article for some reason. What were THE effects on total T?
 
"Two hundred thirty-two men took part in the UC study. Baseline levels were recorded for all men in each of the four measurement areas, and then again at 6-12 weeks post-treatment. The results showed that men who underwent SubQ injections of testosterone resulted in a 14% greater increase in total testosterone levels than the testosterone level of IM patients. SubQ patients also resulted in a 41% lower HCT post-therapy than IM patients and 26.5% lower E2 levels. For both groups of men, there were no elevated levels of PSA."


Love to see some current research and the way this is presented with the vids and PDFs is great. Nice and simple to follow and understand, lots of the important things are noted, I wish every study had something like this attached to it.

However all that has really been provided here amounts to what would usually be found at the end of a study under "conclusions" or "findings" or maybe even "discussion". Those types of summations are heavily influenced by 'opinion' of the author and how they have interpreted the data. Very often I see some rather large jumps of logic in those areas. Confirmation bias and monetary or political influences rear their ugly head here.

So before this becomes the golden research that we (I) can point to when some of the related questions come up I'd sure like to know a shit ton more details - like @Harley00 mentions dosage along with protocols, proper info on time frames etc.

I've not been able to find the actual study so far, anyone have it?
 
I look at this way.
It’s the same either way, just like what you like and worry about your diet and training instead, lol.
 
Last edited:
Love to see some current research and the way this is presented with the vids and PDFs is great. Nice and simple to follow and understand, lots of the important things are noted, I wish every study had something like this attached to it.

However all that has really been provided here amounts to what would usually be found at the end of a study under "conclusions" or "findings" or maybe even "discussion". Those types of summations are heavily influenced by 'opinion' of the author and how they have interpreted the data. Very often I see some rather large jumps of logic in those areas. Confirmation bias and monetary or political influences rear their ugly head here.

So before this becomes the golden research that we (I) can point to when some of the related questions come up I'd sure like to know a shit ton more details - like @Harley00 mentions dosage along with protocols, proper info on time frames etc.

I've not been able to find the actual study so far, anyone have it?
Yeah I couldn't even find the DOI to look it up on scihub
 
I have personally been on HRT for 5 years or so..

I get my levels checked every 3-4 months.

I've gone 3 months IM, then 3 months SUB-Q.. And never has one method seemed to change my blood work for my testosterone levels.. I don't get my estrogen levels checked as often so I can't comment on that.

The only time my test levels changed is when they just dropped about 6-7 points after being on 75mg a week for 4 or 5 years. Had to get bumped up to 100mg a week.

But I will get a comaprison on IM vs SUB Q levels again eventually.
 
weird that the methodology is so vague. 26% lower e2 would be a big deal. but like @animal-inside results, it probably doesnt make a significant difference.
 
I know Chrisler was a fan of Sub-q for trt. That's a huge difference in E2. Hell, I'd definitely switch to sub-q if I thought I would have such results.

There were 64 more participants in the IM group, and the mean age was higher. I'd be interested in knowing the mean B.F. % per group, level of activity, height, and weight. There's quite a few essential variables unaccounted for.

Although they are both very similar, why use two different compounds? The whole idea of a controlled study is to control for all possible variables. It's too bad the actual study isn't available.
 
Last edited:
FWIW I've done bloods on myself at TRT doses comparing both SQ and IM with ranges from 100- 140/week. TT results were virtually identical either way. I don't recall any standout difference in E2 but iirc I didn't test for it everytime as I wasn't looking for it. No standout differences for HCT or PSA either.
 
I know Chrisler was a fan of Sub-q for trt. That's a huge difference in E2. Hell, I'd definitely switch to sub-q if I thought I would have such results.

There were 64 more participants in the IM group, and the mean age was higher. I'd be interested in knowing the mean B.F. % per group, level of activity, height, and weight. There's quite a few essential variables unaccounted for.

Although they are both very similar, why use two different compounds? The whole idea of a controlled study is to control for all possible variables. It's too bad the actual study isn't available.
My brain wasn't working that well last night...back pain, but there were 74 more participants in IM group, nearly twice that of the Sub-q. Also, the SD is greater in the IM group, which means wider dispersion relative to the mean. Further, the mean E2 readings already averaged 20% higher for the IM group.

As anyone here knows full well, there is a difference in the half-life between these two compounds, albeit slight, but that difference will impact the results.

There's so much to question. And, this study was conducted by a medical student? (Shakes head)
 
Last edited:
My brain wasn't working that well last night...back pain, but there were 74 more participants in IM group, nearly twice that of the Sub-q. Also, the SD is greater in the IM group, which means wider dispersion relative to the mean. Further, the mean E2 readings already averaged 20% higher for the IM group.

As anyone here knows full well, there is a difference in the half-life between these two compounds, albeit slight, but that difference will impact the results.

There's so much to question. And, this study was conducted by a medical student? (Shakes head)
The different esters was definitely the stand out head scratcher
 
The first time I took Test-E, I chose to do it in multiple 0.3ml subq shots. I regretted it around 20m later. Lumps. Hot, red and itchy. No reaction with my second attempt, via quad IM.

I grew a pair (or injected it hah).

I just blitzed up 100 25mg aromasin tabs in the mortar and pestle. .1g of the resulting powder a day, and I don't care if it reduces E2. I just dip a finger in. Works out to around 3mg. Obviously do your math. No sides either, unlike taking it in the 12.5mg e3d range.

Beating a dead horse: I hate the standardization methods in that study, but I believe the ester difference was simply due to the equipment available... Though, they could have run E for the IM shots, as well, so I'm still at a loss.

I'm much more interested in the higher trough (between shot) result of +18% over the IM group. I hate days 12-15 after shots.
 
The first time I took Test-E, I chose to do it in multiple 0.3ml subq shots. I regretted it around 20m later. Lumps. Hot, red and itchy. No reaction with my second attempt, via quad IM.

I grew a pair (or injected it hah).

I just blitzed up 100 25mg aromasin tabs in the mortar and pestle. .1g of the resulting powder a day, and I don't care if it reduces E2. I just dip a finger in. Works out to around 3mg. Obviously do your math. No sides either, unlike taking it in the 12.5mg e3d range.

Beating a dead horse: I hate the standardization methods in that study, but I believe the ester difference was simply due to the equipment available... Though, they could have run E for the IM shots, as well, so I'm still at a loss.

I'm much more interested in the higher trough (between shot) result of +18% over the IM group. I hate days 12-15 after shots.
I do nearly the same thing with my script aromasin, although I use a razor blade to cut into quarters, the cut those in half, and often those (approx) 3.125 portions in half again.

I've been at 52mg twice weekly for a month now and did bloods a few days ago. My E2 was 156! The upper limit of normal is 159. Now, it wasn't a sensitive assay, but the morning before I saw the results I took one-eighth of a tab and felt a shitload better by the afternoon. I took ~2 mg yest, which may have been a bit much, but I had to make sure it was lowered. I have a hard time believing that approx 3 mg would lower my E2 70 points. I'll re-evaluate how I feel tomorrow, and resume my low dose cialis. That will let me know where I'm at.

As soon as I start getting irritable with mundane tasks, or short-tempered, or not having morning erections, that's when I know my E2 is creeping up. When I take half of a cialis and 100mg of Viagra and barely manage to perform that's the indisputable proof.

The weird thing is that it's on such a low dose. I've never had to take an AI on this low dose. The only difference is that I've been injecting with 27g 1/2" needles. I have a hard time believing that there would be any real difference between 1/2" injection and 1" in terms of absorption, but I will stick with 1" for a few weeks and see. I also reduced my dose to 50mg/shot.

As to your comment on the study, do you mean that they were unable to order enough test E or test C? lol I was, and still am confounded at such an obvious error.
 
I was going to say, I'm actually beginning to be a bigger fan of Less is more for an AI for HRT doses (say, ~300mg Test E/mo) unless you're blasting with something notorious for prolactin sides (who wants to lactate and rage at just about everything, remember, prolactin and dopamine are antagonistic in the brain - so one very much does affect the other, when it comes to mood) or something that aromatizes readily along with test, say, oral winny (I think? I've never touched an oral. Makes no sense to me).

But I still do the few grains of Asin a day protocol just to make sure I'm not retaining any water. I work 10-11 hrs a day on my feet, that would be a professional death sentence for me. In a hot environment, I'll readily drink 6-8L of water, retaining that is a real PITA.

As for the study, in the methodology, it states that they used test Cyp "quick injector pens" similar to the "new" insulin pens people have. I'm assuming, due to supply-chain/demand issues, no E was available in this administration vector.

I just can't imagine writing a thesis (as I'll be doing shortly on a HRT related subject) and not standardizing your test group's medication... TBH, I know the ester weights are nearly identical, but I'm not well versed on how the body cleaves the ester off, to release free T, and where. Those can have a huge impact on how a drug affects someone, even if dosing is consistent. Imagine, a different enzyme, or tissue location. Ibuprofen is all the same, until it's not, afterall, and you wouldn't run a study using ibuprofen with different' ROA's. And that's flipping advil.
 
I would like to add this as a continuation of my previous post. I did bloods when using 1" needles and 1/2" sub q, and I had higher test and E2 levels. I took noticeably more aromasin while using 1/2" pins vs 1". I thought it was ridiculous, then I searched some forums and came across others who have had the same experience. One guy switched to 1/2" slin pins 6 months ago and almost immediately had worsening E2 issues. It's manageable, but on 52mg e3.5d I would need little to no AI, same dose with 1/2" I'm taking AI twice a week. Still a small amount, but there is a noticeable difference. Then I switched back to 1" needles and I balanced right out. I am convinced there's a difference in absorption rate.

Fwiw, I do my injections on the outside of my thigh where it feels like just skin over muscle, and I'm pretty lean. With 1" IM I will also do quads, but alternate injecting top of thigh to the same side location.
 
I was going to say, I'm actually beginning to be a bigger fan of Less is more for an AI for HRT doses (say, ~300mg Test E/mo) unless you're blasting with something notorious for prolactin sides (who wants to lactate and rage at just about everything, remember, prolactin and dopamine are antagonistic in the brain - so one very much does affect the other, when it comes to mood) or something that aromatizes readily along with test, say, oral winny (I think? I've never touched an oral. Makes no sense to me).

But I still do the few grains of Asin a day protocol just to make sure I'm not retaining any water. I work 10-11 hrs a day on my feet, that would be a professional death sentence for me. In a hot environment, I'll readily drink 6-8L of water, retaining that is a real PITA.

As for the study, in the methodology, it states that they used test Cyp "quick injector pens" similar to the "new" insulin pens people have. I'm assuming, due to supply-chain/demand issues, no E was available in this administration vector.

I just can't imagine writing a thesis (as I'll be doing shortly on a HRT related subject) and not standardizing your test group's medication... TBH, I know the ester weights are nearly identical, but I'm not well versed on how the body cleaves the ester off, to release free T, and where. Those can have a huge impact on how a drug affects someone, even if dosing is consistent. Imagine, a different enzyme, or tissue location. Ibuprofen is all the same, until it's not, afterall, and you wouldn't run a study using ibuprofen with different' ROA's. And that's flipping advil.
dude u cant say what is what here, everyone is different i don't need any e control on 300 ~ mg test
 
I was going to say, I'm actually beginning to be a bigger fan of Less is more for an AI for HRT doses (say, ~300mg Test E/mo) unless you're blasting with something notorious for prolactin sides (who wants to lactate and rage at just about everything, remember, prolactin and dopamine are antagonistic in the brain - so one very much does affect the other, when it comes to mood) or something that aromatizes readily along with test, say, oral winny (I think? I've never touched an oral. Makes no sense to me).

But I still do the few grains of Asin a day protocol just to make sure I'm not retaining any water. I work 10-11 hrs a day on my feet, that would be a professional death sentence for me. In a hot environment, I'll readily drink 6-8L of water, retaining that is a real PITA.

As for the study, in the methodology, it states that they used test Cyp "quick injector pens" similar to the "new" insulin pens people have. I'm assuming, due to supply-chain/demand issues, no E was available in this administration vector.

I just can't imagine writing a thesis (as I'll be doing shortly on a HRT related subject) and not standardizing your test group's medication... TBH, I know the ester weights are nearly identical, but I'm not well versed on how the body cleaves the ester off, to release free T, and where. Those can have a huge impact on how a drug affects someone, even if dosing is consistent. Imagine, a different enzyme, or tissue location. Ibuprofen is all the same, until it's not, afterall, and you wouldn't run a study using ibuprofen with different' ROA's. And that's flipping advil.
If you're not averse to pinning try eod. I've been doing it for a month and on the same weekly dose, I previously injected e3.5d, I have much higher TT and higher FT. A buddy of mine runs anywhere from 250mg test E/wk to 350 every 3 wks, never needs an AI. I wish I was so fortunate. Mind you, I will gain more from 130mg than he will from 250. So, there's a silver lining.
 
Pretty interesting. What I had heard so far was that IM was better than SubQ but now I'm curious to try myself and see my results
 
Top