How long after the T injection are T levels the highest?

[Cataceous]

It gets converted into dht or e2 more quickly and is therefore expelled. I am no claiming to be an expert, but I honestly think you're the one pulling mental gymnastics here by making claims based on speculation and your n=1 experience. Your analogy is not accurate in the first place because you're completely dismissing the fact that free testosterone after it is released from the 2nd reserve is more important than even the 1st and that time and time again smaller more frequent injections have proven anecdotally and objectively to work by many doctors who are experts in this field and countless patients including those on this board. You're making an extraordinary claim and not using actual evidence to back it up besides a poor analogy using water and bathtubs, which completely neglects physiology, so I defer the burden of proof to you.

No, I had been promulgating the party line about fast excretion of T by low-SHBG guys. But then I got interested in the theoretical reasons and found no justification. And logically, how can you say that a higher excretion rate is possible if the rate is limited by absorption from injected depots?

"you're completely dismissing the fact that free testosterone after it is released from the 2nd reserve is more important than even the 1st"

What exactly does this mean?

Show me statistically valid data that the effective half-life of injected testosterone is lower in low-SHBG guys. I don't think there is any.

I am not claiming there are no benefits to having low-SHBG guys inject more often. But I think the reasons may be rooted in free estradiol levels, not in reduced half-lives of injections.

 

[antelopers]

No, I had been promulgating the party line about fast excretion of T by low-SHBG guys. But then I got interested in the theoretical reasons and found no justification. And logically, how can you say that a higher excretion rate is possible if the rate is limited by absorption from injected depots?

"you're completely dismissing the fact that free testosterone after it is released from the 2nd reserve is more important than even the 1st"

What exactly does this mean?

Show me statistically valid data that the effective half-life of injected testosterone is lower in low-SHBG guys. I don't think there is any.

I am not claiming there are no benefits to having low-SHBG guys inject more often. But I think the reasons may be rooted in free estradiol levels, not in reduced half-lives of injections.

By creating multiple, smaller depots and reducing the surface area of each depot, you achieve a slower and steadier release than in one large depot with a higher surface area that reduces as it's used. Also I am not saying that the half life of an ester is changed, rather the half life of Free T itself. Excuse me for mistaking your post as arguing against smaller more frequent injections for low shbg guys.

 

[Cataceous]

By creating multiple, smaller depots and reducing the surface area of each depot, you achieve a slower and steadier release than in one large depot with a higher surface area that reduces as it's used. ...

This is going the opposite direction. I've worked at modeling injected depots as spheres, with absorption rate proportional to surface areas. The results matched some of the experimental data pretty well. What happens is that smaller doses yield shorter apparent half-lives, going as the cube-root of the volume ratios. In at least three research papers I've seen mention of the likelihood that smaller doses have shorter half-lives.

And here's a trivial example, in which we inject a volume V:

Case one, inject V all at once. The sphere has surface area 4 * pi * (3 * V / 4 / pi) ^ (2/3)

Case two, inject two equal doses of V/2. The spheres have total surface area 8 * pi * (3 V / 8 / pi) ^ (2/3)

Ratio of case two to case one? 2 * 2 ^ (-2/3) ~ 1.26
Surface area increases with splitting the doses.

 

[antelopers]

This is going the opposite direction. I've worked at modeling injected depots as spheres, with absorption rate proportional to surface areas. The results matched some of the experimental data pretty well. What happens is that smaller doses yield shorter apparent half-lives, going as the cube-root of the volume ratios. In at least three research papers I've seen mention of the likelihood that smaller doses have shorter half-lives.

And here's a trivial example, in which we inject a volume V:

Case one, inject V all at once. The sphere has surface area 4 * pi * (3 * V / 4 / pi) ^ (2/3)

Case two, inject two equal doses of V/2. The spheres have total surface area 8 * pi * (3 V / 8 / pi) ^ (2/3)

Ratio of case two to case one? 2 * 2 ^ (-2/3) ~ 1.26
Surface area increases with splitting the doses.

Yes if you inject them at the same time.

 

[Cataceous]

Yes if you inject them at the same time.

Indeed, I don't mean to obscure the fact that frequent injections are attenuating peaks and valleys in hormones, and reducing peak estradiol and/or reducing its duration may be particularly useful for low-SHBG guys.

 

[antelopers]

Indeed, I don't mean to obscure the fact that frequent injections are attenuating peaks and valleys in hormones, and reducing peak estradiol and/or reducing its duration may be particularly useful for low-SHBG guys.

I don't seem to disagree with you nearly as much as I originally thought then lol