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
TEST CYP vs TEST E & BLOATING
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="Jeffrey Becker" data-source="post: 3862" data-attributes="member: 266"><p>Theoretically, taking more frequent small shots may help with this because it reduces the peak blood levels. But the pharmaco-dynamics and kinetics of the oil-based esters is a little different than most drugs.</p><p></p><p>Consider, smaller dosage shots also reduce the size of the oil "depot" which is a factor in the "time-release". The reason I quoted those terms, is they are important in understanding the time-release qualities of using esters suspended in oil. Too often when referring to these oil-based esters, the term "half-life" is misused. The half-life of testosterone in the blood is very short, but what determines the time-release is the rate at which the ester leaches from the oil. Theoretically also, the higher the concentration, the faster the release (more testosterone / less oil). Theoretically, the placement of the shot i.e. subcutaneous vs. I/M may also change the time release absorption characteristics. </p><p></p><p>I know for me, the "lump" from a subcutaneous shot, seems to disappear within a matter of hours. Which would make me think most of my testosterone is getting bound up. And why I am experiencing the roller coaster nonetheless. But no bloating compared to my history. Whatever I am getting from my current compounder seems to be acting differently than what I had from other sources. I need to invest in blood work to get a handle on this - however, imagine the investment required to see what a shot is doing in your body over time. What is needed, I believe is research showing and comparing the daily blood levels that result from a single subcutaneous shot vs. an I/M shot say over at least a weeks time. Of course its important first and foremost, that what is being injected is what is labeled. The degree of price competition and cutthroat business environment makes me wonder if always going to the lowest cost provider is the best idea. Unfortunately I know people who have switched from compounded "generics" back to big pharma testosterone esters and gotten better results. Makes one wonder.</p><p></p><p>But I don't think the ester makes much difference, compared to the concentration and size (in ml) of the shot. Perhaps, its possible some people could have sensitivities to solvents, too.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jeffrey Becker, post: 3862, member: 266"] Theoretically, taking more frequent small shots may help with this because it reduces the peak blood levels. But the pharmaco-dynamics and kinetics of the oil-based esters is a little different than most drugs. Consider, smaller dosage shots also reduce the size of the oil "depot" which is a factor in the "time-release". The reason I quoted those terms, is they are important in understanding the time-release qualities of using esters suspended in oil. Too often when referring to these oil-based esters, the term "half-life" is misused. The half-life of testosterone in the blood is very short, but what determines the time-release is the rate at which the ester leaches from the oil. Theoretically also, the higher the concentration, the faster the release (more testosterone / less oil). Theoretically, the placement of the shot i.e. subcutaneous vs. I/M may also change the time release absorption characteristics. I know for me, the "lump" from a subcutaneous shot, seems to disappear within a matter of hours. Which would make me think most of my testosterone is getting bound up. And why I am experiencing the roller coaster nonetheless. But no bloating compared to my history. Whatever I am getting from my current compounder seems to be acting differently than what I had from other sources. I need to invest in blood work to get a handle on this - however, imagine the investment required to see what a shot is doing in your body over time. What is needed, I believe is research showing and comparing the daily blood levels that result from a single subcutaneous shot vs. an I/M shot say over at least a weeks time. Of course its important first and foremost, that what is being injected is what is labeled. The degree of price competition and cutthroat business environment makes me wonder if always going to the lowest cost provider is the best idea. Unfortunately I know people who have switched from compounded "generics" back to big pharma testosterone esters and gotten better results. Makes one wonder. But I don't think the ester makes much difference, compared to the concentration and size (in ml) of the shot. Perhaps, its possible some people could have sensitivities to solvents, too. [/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
TEST CYP vs TEST E & BLOATING
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