Inject hCG IM for better results?

[Cataceous]

No, that is not certain. I personally have only ever observed site leakage with 1/2" IM injections into my delts, never subq regardless of needle length.
...

Fair enough, since there's little, if any, hard data. Anecdotal reports appear to favor it. Grok says this:

Injection site leakage, where a small amount of the oil-based medication (such as testosterone enanthate or cypionate) seeps out from the puncture wound after needle withdrawal, appears to be more commonly reported with subcutaneous (SQ) injections compared to intramuscular (IM) injections. This is based on user experiences from hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) communities, as well as explanations tied to the injection depth and techniques used. While clinical literature rarely addresses leakage directly (focusing instead on pharmacokinetics, safety, and common side effects like pain or swelling), anecdotal evidence consistently highlights it as a minor but frequent occurrence in SQ methods.​

​

It was not a loaded question: "When injecting oil-based testosterone esters, is injection site leakage more prevalent with intra-muscular or subcutaneous injections?"

 

[Mastodont]

Talk about beating a dead horse, no matter how many times people tell they personally had bloodwork done to prove significantly lower levels on subq injection, cat refers back to studies...and how can a xyosted study be taken as concrete evidence anyway, since it is clear they would not publish something that showed subq to not work for all individuals.
I have personally already compared bloodwork 3 times, amounts that should give more than physiological levels give way less, we're talking hypogonadal levels.
And unless injection site leakage is something magical and not leaking oil out the skin, i have never experienced it, are you seriously suggesting that oil leaks out later on when after injection there is nothing coming out?
Also i never got any reactions or lumps on subq on the times i did bloods. Did get them with sustanon subq but the trials were obviously very short hence no data.

 

[Mastodont]

So true. Had here discussions about androgel T level dropping to the end of the day. One member here kept on posting studies that show that levels are stable. Finally evidence accumulated and serum tests showed differently. It wasn't only me...

Some gels do openly report going back to baseline at 12 hours, like testavan and tostran...personally i feel dead tired in the evening way before bedtime on gel, otherwise it's very nice for about ten hours.
I have been wondering about using it twice a day, that would mean keeping the gel tube on me all day every day. Other things i have been wanting to try and have not found lot of anecdotes on is using hcg and gel, let's say hcg 2-3x/week and gel in the morning.

On the topic, i recently switched to using hcg IM on the delts, there was a difference at first, but my personal problems with low e2 on hcg made me give it up for now. Might try IM hcg in a different form still(ovidrel) on the quads, studies seem to indicate delts giving a bit slower and perhaps lower curve, i definitely feel the different absorption and or effect on metabolites.

 

[Vince]

For larger injections I definitely would stick with IM. I can understand why people who do daily injections prefer Sub-Q. I'm not one of them I really like shallow IM. For my daily injections I do like to combine both. The days that I combine both testosterone and HCG I always do and have done shallow IM. I do not like injecting in my stomach, I use love handles. It's always about what works for you. Not what a study says. We are all our own study even though it's only a study of one.

 

[Cataceous]

I have personally already compared bloodwork 3 times, amounts that should give more than physiological levels give way less, we're talking hypogonadal levels...

If with both SC and IM you ensured you had no injection site leakage and you measured free testosterone at enough time points in an injection cycle to accurately estimate AUC then you'd have some grounds to claim reduced bioavailability.

What I've been saying is that measuring testosterone at one point in an injection cycle does not "prove significantly lower levels on subq injection". At best it shows a lower level at that point in time, which could be offset by higher levels at other points in time.

@FunkOdyssey: This isn't an extremely hard or expensive experiment. Why not step up and do it? I did something similar for testosterone suspension, albeit with results I'm still working to explain. We could hash out the methodology. A weekly cycle would probably give more definitive results. It would be good to front-load the tests, where there's likely to be less linearity. E.g. three samples the first day, one the second and third, then skip every other day. Not too much of a PITA if you're not far from a testing location. I would certainly trust your attention to detail. If the results bear out the claim then I would have to pay attention.

 

[Mastodont]

What I've been saying is that measuring testosterone at one point in an injection cycle does not "prove significantly lower levels on subq injection"? At best it shows a lower level at that point in time, which could be offset by higher levels at other points in time.

That would mean subq peaks faster which is far fetched...since i have compared throughs and i have been playing with various esters for 15 years and pretty much know what to expect and get consistent numbers on IM. When i say i have compared subq and im that really means that, and i have never experienced leaking im or subq. Also the feeling on subq correlates well with the hypogonadal numbers every single time, if it peaks later, that means AUC is even worse since through numbers are always lower and at no point is there any wellbeing. There must be a bunch of us lying about it on the internet for some good reason....And no i am not doing daily labs on subq and IM to convince you, i have convinced myself.

 

[FunkOdyssey]

@FunkOdyssey: This isn't an extremely hard or expensive experiment. Why not step up and do it? I did something similar for testosterone suspension, albeit with results I'm still working to explain. We could hash out the methodology.

I'm on Cypionate now, so I would need to spend some significant time on the subq protocol to reach the final levels, which I don't want to do right now. Maybe at some point.

 

[Cataceous]

That would mean subq peaks faster which is far fetched...

It may be far-fetched, but less so than some mysterious and unelucidated mechanism of testosterone destruction.

 

[Phil Goodman]

It may be far-fetched, but less so than some mysterious and unelucidated mechanism of testosterone destruction.

Not just far-fetched, it goes directly against our understanding of how the body utilizes it and how there are higher peaks(faster utilization) when injecting into an area with blood flow and better abilities to process the medication.


I agree with you that the main culprit here is the difference in pharmacokinetics between the two routes of administration. One thing to consider though is that testosterone naturally degrades over time, particularly when exposed to heat. Once it hits 77 degrees the potency starts to degrade. And once it starts getting into the upper 90’s (think temperature of a human body) the potency starts to degrade rather quickly. So theoretically the longer it sits in a subcutaneous deposit without being utilized the less potent it becomes. That would also apply to IM, but again it is utilized more rapidly when injected into the muscle so there should be less opportunity for degradation.

Not saying how much of a difference it does or doesn’t make, and that probably differs from person to person. Just providing a possible mechanism as I brainstorm this whole thing.

 

[Cataceous]

Not just far-fetched, it goes directly against our understanding of how the body utilizes it and how there are higher peaks(faster utilization) when injecting into an area with blood flow and better abilities to process the medication.

The point is that if you open the door to anecdotal evidence then there are examples suggesting faster SC absorption in some cases. However, I have much more confidence in the controlled studies measuring AUCs.

I agree with you that the main culprit here is the difference in pharmacokinetics between the two routes of administration. One thing to consider though is that testosterone naturally degrades over time, particularly when exposed to heat. Once it hits 77 degrees the potency starts to degrade. And once it starts getting into the upper 90’s (think temperature of a human body) the potency starts to degrade rather quickly. So theoretically the longer it sits in a subcutaneous deposit without being utilized the less potent it becomes. That would also apply to IM, but again it is utilized more rapidly when injected into the muscle so there should be less opportunity for degradation.

No, it takes >40° C to invoke non-negligible degradation. That's not happening unless you're running a high fever for days. Even then, "At 40°C and 75% relative humidity (common conditions for accelerated testing), degradation becomes measurable after weeks to months, with a typical loss of 5–10% potency over 6 months, depending on the ester and oil used." That's a long time for a minor reduction. Forget the heat angle.

AI is able to spit out some better theoretical possibilities, but even then suggests "slight" effects. For example, "SC injections have a higher risk of local degradation due to slower absorption, higher fat content, and increased potential for immune responses or granulomas. This could lead to a small reduction in bioavailability compared to IM, particularly in cases of injection site complications."

What I expect is a very small effect, within the error margins of the clinical trials. However, if there is a large effect then it would have to be rare to escape detection in controlled settings.

 

[Phil Goodman]

The point is that if you open the door to anecdotal evidence then there are examples suggesting faster SC absorption in some cases. However, I have much more confidence in the controlled studies measuring AUCs.

I’ve never seen anecdotal reports of someone claiming faster absorptions for sub q application, and even if they did not sure how they would come to that conclusion.

No, it takes >40° C to invoke non-negligible degradation. That's not happening unless you're running a high fever for days. Even then, "At 40°C and 75% relative humidity (common conditions for accelerated testing), degradation becomes measurable after weeks to months, with a typical loss of 5–10% potency over 6 months, depending on the ester and oil used." That's a long time for a minor reduction. Forget the heat angle.

AI is able to spit out some better theoretical possibilities, but even then suggests "slight" effects. For example, "SC injections have a higher risk of local degradation due to slower absorption, higher fat content, and increased potential for immune responses or granulomas. This could lead to a small reduction in bioavailability compared to IM, particularly in cases of injection site complications."

What I expect is a very small effect, within the error margins of the clinical trials. However, if there is a large effect then it would have to be rare to escape detection in controlled settings.

Yeah, those are good points with regard to the heat and other potential aspects to consider. It would be interesting to see a well structured study in a controlled setting, but since we don’t have those we’re just left with theoretical stuff I guess.