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
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone Basics & Questions
Shallow Testosterone IM versus SubQ Injections - Lab Results
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="solothesensei" data-source="post: 211592" data-attributes="member: 43130"><p>Thanks for your comment, I stand corrected that my TT explanation is logically insufficient.</p><p></p><p>I'd like to point out an issue with the study you quoted on the 14 transgender males though.</p><p></p><p>Looking at the <a href="https://scihub.yncjkj.com/https://academic.oup.com/ajhp/article-abstract/75/6/351/5102336?redirectedFrom=fulltext" target="_blank">actual study</a>, I notice that the IM readings were taken on week 3, but the SC readings were taken on week 11. This is hardly fair for comparison. If anything, the correct IM measurements (if done on week 11) should be significantly higher, statistically.</p><p></p><p>Here's the excerpt: <em>During the intensive pharmacokinetic testing weeks, total testosterone exposure, as measured by the mean ± S.D. AUC after i.m. injection <strong>(during week 3)</strong> (1.9 ± 0.6 nmol·days/L/mg), was not significantly different from that during the subcutaneous regimen <strong>(week 11) </strong>(1.7 ± 0.6 nmol·days/L/mg)</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="solothesensei, post: 211592, member: 43130"] Thanks for your comment, I stand corrected that my TT explanation is logically insufficient. I'd like to point out an issue with the study you quoted on the 14 transgender males though. Looking at the [URL='https://scihub.yncjkj.com/https://academic.oup.com/ajhp/article-abstract/75/6/351/5102336?redirectedFrom=fulltext']actual study[/URL], I notice that the IM readings were taken on week 3, but the SC readings were taken on week 11. This is hardly fair for comparison. If anything, the correct IM measurements (if done on week 11) should be significantly higher, statistically. Here's the excerpt: [I]During the intensive pharmacokinetic testing weeks, total testosterone exposure, as measured by the mean ± S.D. AUC after i.m. injection [B](during week 3)[/B] (1.9 ± 0.6 nmol·days/L/mg), was not significantly different from that during the subcutaneous regimen [B](week 11) [/B](1.7 ± 0.6 nmol·days/L/mg)[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone Basics & Questions
Shallow Testosterone IM versus SubQ Injections - Lab Results
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