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
Subcutaneous Administration of Testosterone
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="JSayaMD" data-source="post: 1774" data-attributes="member: 282"><p><strong>From an organic chemistry perspective</strong>,<strong> the opposite should be more of an issue (injecting a hydrophilic -water soluble or "water loving" for forum members - substance into a hydrophobic</strong> <strong>medium - fat soluble or "water fearing"). Injection of a water-based substance into fatty medium usually will result in a depot (pocket) of the water-soluble material being formed (much like a micelle forms when a fat-soluble substance is put in water). This depot/pocket is often evident to patients in the form of a palpable nodule which may be felt for some time after a water-soluble injection into fatty tissue (ie: sermorelin, HCG, etc) - although part of this is a local inflammatory reaction as well - also partially attributable to the irritation from the basic chemical properties of oil and water not mixing.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>A fat-soluble substance being injected into a fatty/oily substance will usually disperse/distribute more so than form a depot/pocket. </strong></p><p></p><p><strong>In reality, my only real concern with subq injections is injecting into significantly less vascular tissue</strong>. <strong>This should result in much slower absorption - although this will be somewhat counter-balanced by the increased dispersion/distribution as noted above.</strong> <strong>This slower rate of absorption, if it translates to less variability and more stable levels, may in fact be the principle benefit of subq injections. There are pros/cons to both IM and subq injections and patient preference is often the deciding factor for my patients.</strong> <strong>The default route, if no patient preference is indicated, is IM for me (with twice weekly or q5-7 day injections working quite well...and fairly predictable for the most part...at least in so much as hormones can be...)</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Dr Saya</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JSayaMD, post: 1774, member: 282"] [B]From an organic chemistry perspective[/B],[B] the opposite should be more of an issue (injecting a hydrophilic -water soluble or "water loving" for forum members - substance into a hydrophobic[/B] [B]medium - fat soluble or "water fearing"). Injection of a water-based substance into fatty medium usually will result in a depot (pocket) of the water-soluble material being formed (much like a micelle forms when a fat-soluble substance is put in water). This depot/pocket is often evident to patients in the form of a palpable nodule which may be felt for some time after a water-soluble injection into fatty tissue (ie: sermorelin, HCG, etc) - although part of this is a local inflammatory reaction as well - also partially attributable to the irritation from the basic chemical properties of oil and water not mixing. A fat-soluble substance being injected into a fatty/oily substance will usually disperse/distribute more so than form a depot/pocket. [/B] [B]In reality, my only real concern with subq injections is injecting into significantly less vascular tissue[/B]. [B]This should result in much slower absorption - although this will be somewhat counter-balanced by the increased dispersion/distribution as noted above.[/B] [B]This slower rate of absorption, if it translates to less variability and more stable levels, may in fact be the principle benefit of subq injections. There are pros/cons to both IM and subq injections and patient preference is often the deciding factor for my patients.[/B] [B]The default route, if no patient preference is indicated, is IM for me (with twice weekly or q5-7 day injections working quite well...and fairly predictable for the most part...at least in so much as hormones can be...) Dr Saya[/B] [/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
Subcutaneous Administration of Testosterone
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