ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Expert Interviews
Questions for Specific Doctors & Experts
Ask Dr Rand McClain
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rand McClain DO" data-source="post: 112188" data-attributes="member: 90"><p>Hi Galaxy, one of the main reasons for not "endorsing" sub Q injections of T was because it was relatively new (at least in terms of being main stream). I (arguably, we) just didn't have enough data/feedback, and, I had seen some pretty bad case of sub Q injections gone bad - mainly large blebs, sometimes infected, from injecting too much T under the skin. More recently, I have seen more cases of individuals using either strict sub Q injections or sort of a hydrid of a sub Q and IM combined using a short (5/8") needle to inject. In addition, these successful cases are using smaller, more frequent injections to overcome the issue with creating the bleb under the skin where there is less vasculature extant to absorb/remove the T. My only quandry with this is that the whole purpose of an esterified T is to make dosing (an invasive procedure with a needle) less frequent, more safe, and more convenient. Why not consider an appropriate dose of a gel or cream if one is going to dose daily, eg? But, for those who don't mind the extra work, the fact that one is more frequently dosing smaller amounts AND the T is esterified makes for a more stable titer of T. This can make some people feel better than when the titer varies much more so with weekly injections (though rarely do patients notice a difference in my experience as long as the titer is high enough to be therapeutic) and it can reduce or even eliminate the need for estrogen control. This obviation for the need for an estrogen "blocker" such as an AI or an actual receptor blocker is, to me, the best reason for more frequent dosing of an ester of T whether via sub Q, IM, or hybrid.</p><p>As for combining T with HCG, I am still not a fan for the simple reason that combining an aqueous with an oil-based solution is asking for and often results in a problem. The two do not mix and the injection site often develops a "mouse" - a red, raised area that can develop into an infection/abscess.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rand McClain DO, post: 112188, member: 90"] Hi Galaxy, one of the main reasons for not "endorsing" sub Q injections of T was because it was relatively new (at least in terms of being main stream). I (arguably, we) just didn't have enough data/feedback, and, I had seen some pretty bad case of sub Q injections gone bad - mainly large blebs, sometimes infected, from injecting too much T under the skin. More recently, I have seen more cases of individuals using either strict sub Q injections or sort of a hydrid of a sub Q and IM combined using a short (5/8") needle to inject. In addition, these successful cases are using smaller, more frequent injections to overcome the issue with creating the bleb under the skin where there is less vasculature extant to absorb/remove the T. My only quandry with this is that the whole purpose of an esterified T is to make dosing (an invasive procedure with a needle) less frequent, more safe, and more convenient. Why not consider an appropriate dose of a gel or cream if one is going to dose daily, eg? But, for those who don't mind the extra work, the fact that one is more frequently dosing smaller amounts AND the T is esterified makes for a more stable titer of T. This can make some people feel better than when the titer varies much more so with weekly injections (though rarely do patients notice a difference in my experience as long as the titer is high enough to be therapeutic) and it can reduce or even eliminate the need for estrogen control. This obviation for the need for an estrogen "blocker" such as an AI or an actual receptor blocker is, to me, the best reason for more frequent dosing of an ester of T whether via sub Q, IM, or hybrid. As for combining T with HCG, I am still not a fan for the simple reason that combining an aqueous with an oil-based solution is asking for and often results in a problem. The two do not mix and the injection site often develops a "mouse" - a red, raised area that can develop into an infection/abscess. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Expert Interviews
Questions for Specific Doctors & Experts
Ask Dr Rand McClain
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top