The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Steroids
 
Injection Site Pain
 

conservativedog
Level

Join date: May 2010
Posts: 1690

Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
blood tests have confirmed..

I draw with a 23g and backload


Anecdotal meaning that there were no actual studies done.

Man, that's a lot of syringe management going on. I can see the upside, though. How many slin needle/syringes do you burn through in a normal week?

We had some luer(sp) lock slin needles that you could use on a regular syringe. I may go dig those out tomorrow and try pinning the slin way.



I go through 3 slin pins a night.. they are very cheap

here is a study

Subcutaneous Administration Of Testosterone

Al-Futaisi AM, Al-Zakwani IS, Almahrezi AM, Morris D. Subcutaneous administration of testosterone . A pilot study report. Saudi Med J 2006;27(12):1843-6. http://ipac.kacst.edu.sa/...06/161440_1.pdf

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of low doses of subcutaneous testosterone in hypogonadal men since the intramuscular route, which is the most widely used form of testosterone replacement therapy, is inconvenient to many patients.

METHODS: All men with primary and secondary hypogonadism attending the reproductive endocrine clinic at Royal Victoria Hospital, Monteral, Quebec, Canada, were invited to participate in the study. Subjects were enrolled from January 2002 till December 2002. Patients were asked to self-administer weekly low doses of testosterone enanthate using 0.5 ml insulin syringe.

RESULTS: A total of 22 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean trough was 14.48 +/- 3.14 nmol/L and peak total testosterone was 21.65 +/- 7.32 nmol/L. For the free testosterone the average trough was 59.94 +/- 20.60 pmol/L and the peak was 85.17 +/- 32.88 pmol/L. All of the patients delivered testosterone with ease and no local reactions were reported.

CONCLUSION: Therapy with weekly subcutaneous testosterone produced serum levels that were within the normal range in 100% of patients for both peak and trough levels. This is the first report, which demonstrated the efficacy of delivering weekly testosterone using this cheap, safe, and less painful subcutaneous route.

STABLE TESTOSTERONE LEVELS ACHIEVED WITH SUBCUTANEOUS TESTOSTERONE INJECTIONS

M.B. Greenspan, C.M. Chang
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Objectives: The preferred technique of androgen replacement has been intramuscular (IM) testosterone, but wide variations in testosterone levels are often seen. Subcutaneous (SC) testosterone injection is a novel approach; however, its physiological effects are unclear. We therefore investigated the sustainability of stable testosterone levels using SC therapy.

Patients and Methods: Between May and September 2005, we conducted a small pilot study involving 10 male patients with symptomatic late-onset hypogonadism. Every patient had been stable on TE 200 mg IM for 41 year. Patients were instructed to self-inject with testosterone enanthate (TE) 100 mg SC (DELATESTRYL 200 mg/cc, Theramed Corp, Canada) into the anterior abdomen once weekly. Some patients were down-titrated to 50 mg based on their total testosterone (T) at 4 weeks. Informed consent was obtained as SC testosterone administration is not officially approved by Health Canada. T levels were measured before and 24 hours after injection during weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 96 hours after injection in week 6 and 8. At week 12, PSA, CBC, and T levels were measured however; the week 12 data are still being collected.

Results: Prior to initiation of SC therapy, T was 19.14+3.48 nmol/l, hemoglobin 15.8+1.3 g/dl, hematocrit 0.47+0.02, and PSA 1.05+0.65 ng/ml. During the first 4 weeks, there was a steady increase in pre-injection T from 19.14+3.48 to 23.89+9.15 nmol/l (p???¼0.1). However, after 8 weeks the post-injection T (25.77+7.67 nmol/l) remained similar to that of week 1 (27.46+12.91 nmol/l). Patients tolerated this therapy with no adverse effects.

Conclusions: A once-week SC injection of 50?¢??100 mg of TE appears to achieve sustainable and stable levels of physiological T. This technique offers fewer physician visits and the use of smaller quantity of medication, thus lower costs. However, the long term clinical and physiological effects of this therapy need further evaluation.



You and KSman in TRT forum are like the magic eight ball for answers. Seriously put a book or notes together at some point. Make some money off your knowledge.

BTW what's your knowledge on eating wheat products?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mr. Walkway
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3404

conservativedog wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
blood tests have confirmed..

I draw with a 23g and backload


Anecdotal meaning that there were no actual studies done.

Man, that's a lot of syringe management going on. I can see the upside, though. How many slin needle/syringes do you burn through in a normal week?

We had some luer(sp) lock slin needles that you could use on a regular syringe. I may go dig those out tomorrow and try pinning the slin way.



I go through 3 slin pins a night.. they are very cheap

here is a study

Subcutaneous Administration Of Testosterone

Al-Futaisi AM, Al-Zakwani IS, Almahrezi AM, Morris D. Subcutaneous administration of testosterone . A pilot study report. Saudi Med J 2006;27(12):1843-6. http://ipac.kacst.edu.sa/...06/161440_1.pdf

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of low doses of subcutaneous testosterone in hypogonadal men since the intramuscular route, which is the most widely used form of testosterone replacement therapy, is inconvenient to many patients.

METHODS: All men with primary and secondary hypogonadism attending the reproductive endocrine clinic at Royal Victoria Hospital, Monteral, Quebec, Canada, were invited to participate in the study. Subjects were enrolled from January 2002 till December 2002. Patients were asked to self-administer weekly low doses of testosterone enanthate using 0.5 ml insulin syringe.

RESULTS: A total of 22 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean trough was 14.48 +/- 3.14 nmol/L and peak total testosterone was 21.65 +/- 7.32 nmol/L. For the free testosterone the average trough was 59.94 +/- 20.60 pmol/L and the peak was 85.17 +/- 32.88 pmol/L. All of the patients delivered testosterone with ease and no local reactions were reported.

CONCLUSION: Therapy with weekly subcutaneous testosterone produced serum levels that were within the normal range in 100% of patients for both peak and trough levels. This is the first report, which demonstrated the efficacy of delivering weekly testosterone using this cheap, safe, and less painful subcutaneous route.

STABLE TESTOSTERONE LEVELS ACHIEVED WITH SUBCUTANEOUS TESTOSTERONE INJECTIONS

M.B. Greenspan, C.M. Chang
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Objectives: The preferred technique of androgen replacement has been intramuscular (IM) testosterone, but wide variations in testosterone levels are often seen. Subcutaneous (SC) testosterone injection is a novel approach; however, its physiological effects are unclear. We therefore investigated the sustainability of stable testosterone levels using SC therapy.

Patients and Methods: Between May and September 2005, we conducted a small pilot study involving 10 male patients with symptomatic late-onset hypogonadism. Every patient had been stable on TE 200 mg IM for 41 year. Patients were instructed to self-inject with testosterone enanthate (TE) 100 mg SC (DELATESTRYL 200 mg/cc, Theramed Corp, Canada) into the anterior abdomen once weekly. Some patients were down-titrated to 50 mg based on their total testosterone (T) at 4 weeks. Informed consent was obtained as SC testosterone administration is not officially approved by Health Canada. T levels were measured before and 24 hours after injection during weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 96 hours after injection in week 6 and 8. At week 12, PSA, CBC, and T levels were measured however; the week 12 data are still being collected.

Results: Prior to initiation of SC therapy, T was 19.14+3.48 nmol/l, hemoglobin 15.8+1.3 g/dl, hematocrit 0.47+0.02, and PSA 1.05+0.65 ng/ml. During the first 4 weeks, there was a steady increase in pre-injection T from 19.14+3.48 to 23.89+9.15 nmol/l (p??????????¼0.1). However, after 8 weeks the post-injection T (25.77+7.67 nmol/l) remained similar to that of week 1 (27.46+12.91 nmol/l). Patients tolerated this therapy with no adverse effects.

Conclusions: A once-week SC injection of 50??????¢??100 mg of TE appears to achieve sustainable and stable levels of physiological T. This technique offers fewer physician visits and the use of smaller quantity of medication, thus lower costs. However, the long term clinical and physiological effects of this therapy need further evaluation.



You and KSman in TRT forum are like the magic eight ball for answers. Seriously put a book or notes together at some point. Make some money off your knowledge.

BTW what's your knowledge on eating wheat products?


his knowledge is greater than mine

im not a celiac but I stay away from them anyways

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

drunkpig
Level

Join date: Sep 2012
Posts: 511

Sorry if I was too vague. I was referring to your statement that many have noticed lower estrogen levels via subQ injections versus IM.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

rds63799
Level

Join date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3730

Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
blood tests have confirmed..

I draw with a 23g and backload


Anecdotal meaning that there were no actual studies done.

Man, that's a lot of syringe management going on. I can see the upside, though. How many slin needle/syringes do you burn through in a normal week?

We had some luer(sp) lock slin needles that you could use on a regular syringe. I may go dig those out tomorrow and try pinning the slin way.


I go through 3 slin pins a night.. they are very cheap

here is a study

Subcutaneous Administration Of Testosterone

Al-Futaisi AM, Al-Zakwani IS, Almahrezi AM, Morris D. Subcutaneous administration of testosterone . A pilot study report. Saudi Med J 2006;27(12):1843-6. http://ipac.kacst.edu.sa/...06/161440_1.pdf

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of low doses of subcutaneous testosterone in hypogonadal men since the intramuscular route, which is the most widely used form of testosterone replacement therapy, is inconvenient to many patients.

METHODS: All men with primary and secondary hypogonadism attending the reproductive endocrine clinic at Royal Victoria Hospital, Monteral, Quebec, Canada, were invited to participate in the study. Subjects were enrolled from January 2002 till December 2002. Patients were asked to self-administer weekly low doses of testosterone enanthate using 0.5 ml insulin syringe.

RESULTS: A total of 22 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean trough was 14.48 +/- 3.14 nmol/L and peak total testosterone was 21.65 +/- 7.32 nmol/L. For the free testosterone the average trough was 59.94 +/- 20.60 pmol/L and the peak was 85.17 +/- 32.88 pmol/L. All of the patients delivered testosterone with ease and no local reactions were reported.

CONCLUSION: Therapy with weekly subcutaneous testosterone produced serum levels that were within the normal range in 100% of patients for both peak and trough levels. This is the first report, which demonstrated the efficacy of delivering weekly testosterone using this cheap, safe, and less painful subcutaneous route.

STABLE TESTOSTERONE LEVELS ACHIEVED WITH SUBCUTANEOUS TESTOSTERONE INJECTIONS

M.B. Greenspan, C.M. Chang
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Objectives: The preferred technique of androgen replacement has been intramuscular (IM) testosterone, but wide variations in testosterone levels are often seen. Subcutaneous (SC) testosterone injection is a novel approach; however, its physiological effects are unclear. We therefore investigated the sustainability of stable testosterone levels using SC therapy.

Patients and Methods: Between May and September 2005, we conducted a small pilot study involving 10 male patients with symptomatic late-onset hypogonadism. Every patient had been stable on TE 200 mg IM for 41 year. Patients were instructed to self-inject with testosterone enanthate (TE) 100 mg SC (DELATESTRYL 200 mg/cc, Theramed Corp, Canada) into the anterior abdomen once weekly. Some patients were down-titrated to 50 mg based on their total testosterone (T) at 4 weeks. Informed consent was obtained as SC testosterone administration is not officially approved by Health Canada. T levels were measured before and 24 hours after injection during weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 96 hours after injection in week 6 and 8. At week 12, PSA, CBC, and T levels were measured however; the week 12 data are still being collected.

Results: Prior to initiation of SC therapy, T was 19.14+3.48 nmol/l, hemoglobin 15.8+1.3 g/dl, hematocrit 0.47+0.02, and PSA 1.05+0.65 ng/ml. During the first 4 weeks, there was a steady increase in pre-injection T from 19.14+3.48 to 23.89+9.15 nmol/l (p?¼0.1). However, after 8 weeks the post-injection T (25.77+7.67 nmol/l) remained similar to that of week 1 (27.46+12.91 nmol/l). Patients tolerated this therapy with no adverse effects.

Conclusions: A once-week SC injection of 50â??100 mg of TE appears to achieve sustainable and stable levels of physiological T. This technique offers fewer physician visits and the use of smaller quantity of medication, thus lower costs. However, the long term clinical and physiological effects of this therapy need further evaluation.



THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mr. Walkway
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3404

drunkpig wrote:
Sorry if I was too vague. I was referring to your statement that many have noticed lower estrogen levels via subQ injections versus IM.


yes blood tests have confirmed

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

GreenGoblin
Level 3

Join date: Jan 2005
Posts: 119

I must admit WW ..... this is the first I have heard of this. Very interesting read. ty for posting.

I have long been a fan a frequent injections with Slin pins. I can't believe sometimes I used to jab myself with 1 1/2 27g pins *shudders* (lol) I go thru bags and bags of slin pins and they are so cheap that it matters not to me on the frequency, only the stable plasma levels and little to no scar tissue build up.

I might have to run my own experiment one day with subQ inj and run the the blood and see what it says.

cheers WW.

GG

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mr. Walkway
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3404

reduced scar tissue buildup, and reduced chance of an abscess as you are pinning .5ml instead of 3ml+ boluses

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

drunkpig
Level

Join date: Sep 2012
Posts: 511

Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Sorry if I was too vague. I was referring to your statement that many have noticed lower estrogen levels via subQ injections versus IM.


yes blood tests have confirmed


Blood tests from whom? Any studies? I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I've been in this game long enough not to buy into every bro-science claim that comes along.

SubQ injections are not new - but the claim that one administration route produces lower E levels is new to me.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mr. Walkway
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3404

drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Sorry if I was too vague. I was referring to your statement that many have noticed lower estrogen levels via subQ injections versus IM.


yes blood tests have confirmed


Blood tests from whom? Any studies? I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I've been in this game long enough not to buy into every bro-science claim that comes along.

SubQ injections are not new - but the claim that one administration route produces lower E levels is new to me.




I don't know what to tell you.. you believe aromasin is the premier AI even though I have posted studies showing that it is not nearly as powerful as you think it is..

I doubt you have "been in the game" very long, or at least your knowledge is lacking for someone who has..

it seems as though you do not want to accept my words.. which is fine

I doubt that studies will be performed on estrogen levels.. as researchers will likely never raise testosterone levels of their subjects above physiological levels

however there are a small number of people in the steroid community that I respect.. their knowledge far exceeds mine, and their blood work (that they have posted) supports my claim..

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

drunkpig
Level

Join date: Sep 2012
Posts: 511

Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Sorry if I was too vague. I was referring to your statement that many have noticed lower estrogen levels via subQ injections versus IM.


yes blood tests have confirmed


Blood tests from whom? Any studies? I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I've been in this game long enough not to buy into every bro-science claim that comes along.

SubQ injections are not new - but the claim that one administration route produces lower E levels is new to me.




I don't know what to tell you.. you believe aromasin is the premier AI even though I have posted studies showing that it is not nearly as powerful as you think it is..

I doubt you have "been in the game" very long, or at least your knowledge is lacking for someone who has..

it seems as though you do not want to accept my words.. which is fine

I doubt that studies will be performed on estrogen levels.. as researchers will likely never raise testosterone levels of their subjects above physiological levels

however there are a small number of people in the steroid community that I respect.. their knowledge far exceeds mine, and their blood work (that they have posted) supports my claim..



LMAO. Dude if you had a fucking clue who you were waxing expert with...well...you obviously don't.

If your "small number of people in the steroid community" doesn't include IBBF pro's and contest prep experts - then step the fuck off because I could give a rat's ass who your friends are.


  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mr. Walkway
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3404

drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Sorry if I was too vague. I was referring to your statement that many have noticed lower estrogen levels via subQ injections versus IM.


yes blood tests have confirmed


Blood tests from whom? Any studies? I'm not trying to bust your balls, but I've been in this game long enough not to buy into every bro-science claim that comes along.

SubQ injections are not new - but the claim that one administration route produces lower E levels is new to me.




I don't know what to tell you.. you believe aromasin is the premier AI even though I have posted studies showing that it is not nearly as powerful as you think it is..

I doubt you have "been in the game" very long, or at least your knowledge is lacking for someone who has..

it seems as though you do not want to accept my words.. which is fine

I doubt that studies will be performed on estrogen levels.. as researchers will likely never raise testosterone levels of their subjects above physiological levels

however there are a small number of people in the steroid community that I respect.. their knowledge far exceeds mine, and their blood work (that they have posted) supports my claim..



LMAO. Dude if you had a fucking clue who you were waxing expert with...well...you obviously don't.

If your "small number of people in the steroid community" doesn't include IBBF pro's and contest prep experts - then step the fuck off because I could give a rat's ass who your friends are.





there is no need to be upset

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

drunkpig
Level

Join date: Sep 2012
Posts: 511

Mr. Walkway wrote:

there is no need to be upset



If you think that was upset, then you must be a relative newbie to the community.



  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mr. Walkway
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3404

im not trying to get into a dick measuring contest drunkpig..

I wasn't trying to be offensive.. was just surprised at the things you believed and the questions you were asking..

feel free to share some of the knowledge you have gleaned from your IBBF pro friends, im sure we could all derive benefit from it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

drunkpig
Level

Join date: Sep 2012
Posts: 511

Mr. Walkway wrote:
im not trying to get into a dick measuring contest drunkpig..

I wasn't trying to be offensive.. was just surprised at the things you believed and the questions you were asking..

feel free to share some of the knowledge you have gleaned from your IBBF pro friends, im sure we could all derive benefit from it.


I did, and you used it as newbie cannon fodder because it didn't jive with the bro-science you've been spoon fed. I don't cast pearls before swine, and how long your penis is or isn't doesn't even register on my give-a-shit-o-meter.

I asked you to back up a claim I have never heard before, and your response is to launch into an attack on my knowledge. Based on what? What I had already admitted was an anecdotal consensus among people I associate with? A consensus of people who get paid to be in the community? A consensus that happens to fly in the face of controlled studies involving hypogonadal men?

Learn to take your licks and back up your shit when asked - and be man enough to admit anecdotal proof when that's all you have.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mr. Walkway
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3404

drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
im not trying to get into a dick measuring contest drunkpig..

I wasn't trying to be offensive.. was just surprised at the things you believed and the questions you were asking..

feel free to share some of the knowledge you have gleaned from your IBBF pro friends, im sure we could all derive benefit from it.


I did, and you used it as newbie cannon fodder because it didn't jive with the bro-science you've been spoon fed. I don't cast pearls before swine, and how long your penis is or isn't doesn't even register on my give-a-shit-o-meter.

I asked you to back up a claim I have never heard before, and your response is to launch into an attack on my knowledge. Based on what? What I had already admitted was an anecdotal consensus among people I associate with? A consensus of people who get paid to be in the community? A consensus that happens to fly in the face of controlled studies involving hypogonadal men?

Learn to take your licks and back up your shit when asked - and be man enough to admit anecdotal proof when that's all you have.




This must be the knowledge you laid on everyone? that aromasin suppresses estrogen by 85%? even though my study obviously demonstrates otherwise?

Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
This is not true. They all reduce free estrogen in young males by about 45-50%.


You are partially correct. I got my order mixed up. exemestane is the most potent, followed by letro and adex.

Using William Llewellen's AAS reference manual it seems that, in clinical trials, adex and letro suppressed around 75-80% of estrogen. Armoasin (exemestane) was at 85%.

To quote Llewellen himself, "Aromasin may perhaps be the most effective aromatase inhibitor to date".

If you want to argue with Bill, go ahead.


my mistake, I meant 45-60% in young males, and about the same in elderly ones.. It really depends on what they use

Abstract

Context: Aging in men is associated with a decline in serum testosterone (T) levels.
Objective: Our objective was to assess whether decreased T in aging might result from increased estradiol (E2) negative feedback on gonadotropin secretion.
Design and Setting: We conducted a comparative intervention study (2004) in the Outpatient Endocrinology Clinic, Ghent University Hospital.

Participants: Participants included healthy young and elderly men (n = 10 vs. 10).
Interventions: We used placebo and letrozole (2.5 mg/d) for 28 d, separated by 2 wk washout.

Main Outcome Measures: We assessed changes in serum levels of free E2, LH, and FSH, free T, SHBG, and gonadotropins response to an iv 2.5-???????????????¼g GnRH bolus.

Results: As assessed after 28 d of treatment, letrozole lowered E2 by 46% in the young men (P = 0.002) and 62% in the elderly men (P < 0.001).

In both age groups, letrozole, but not placebo, significantly increased LH levels (339 and 323% in the young and the elderly, respectively) and T (146 and 99%, respectively) (P value of young vs. elderly was not significant). Under letrozole, peak LH response to GnRH was 152 and 52% increase from baseline in young and older men, respectively (P = 0.01).

Conclusions: Aromatase inhibition markedly increased basal LH and T levels and the LH response to GnRH in both young and elderly men. The observation of similar to greater LH responses in the young compared with the elderly does not support the hypothesis that increased restraining of LH secretion by endogenous estrogens is instrumental in age-related decline of Leydig cell function.


im fine with disagreeing with William on this.. clinical trials back me up. I wouldn't call Op "elderly".. but that's just me

The trials that were conducted that say that aromasin lowers estrogen by 80%+ and letro by 95%+ were performed on post menopausal women who.. do not really have much aromatase floating around..



this is where you cite aromasin's "suicidal" behavior (LOL).. about 80% of people don't understand what that means.. it would appear that you do not either... as you cite it as being a benefit or a plus

Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
also, letro is the most potent..


It is also the harshest on blood lipid profiles.

I'm going to change my mind again and go with my original statement that the biggest gun is letro. But a couple of caveats.

1. Exemestane is different than either adex or letro in that it is a steroidal suicide AI. The circles I run in, exemestane is a god.

2. For an over 40 HRT patient, letro may not be cholesterol friendly.


Other than that - I think it's mainly a matter of preference. The differences between the three AI's mentioned amount to nothing more substantial than fodder for internet arguments.



why do you refer to as exemestane as "a god"?



this is where you draw support for your incorrect claim by appealing to the authority of your unnamed posse of "IBBF" bodybuilders...

and I drop even MORE knowledge on you as to why aromasin is inferior at suppressing estrogen..


and you conclude the discussion with another appeal to the "authority" of your unnamed "IBBF" posse

drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
drunkpig wrote:
Mr. Walkway wrote:
why do you refer to as exemestane as "a god"?


In the end of the pool I swim in, most people prefer exemestane to adex or letro for their AI.






that makes no sense.. it has a half life of approximately 8.9 hours, very poor bioavailability when taken orally (approximately 42%)... and at 12 hours it reaches peak suppression after which estrogen begins to rise again..



what is it that you like so much about aromasin?


It tastes good.

It helps dry you out in a healthier manner with respect to blood lipid profiles, assuming one is taking a lot og gear.

I don't recommend it for new cycles, or for low volume cycles. As I have said, the people I associate with prefer it over adex and letro. And they seem to know what they are doing.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mr. Walkway
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3404

and I posted a study about subq shots for trt.. not exactly where you are drawing the "bro science" accusation from..

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

drunkpig
Level

Join date: Sep 2012
Posts: 511

Mr. Walkway wrote:
and I posted a study about subq shots for trt.. not exactly where you are drawing the "bro science" accusation from..


I asked for a study showing that estrogen levels were lower when injecting subQ versus IM.

I've known that subQ injections were more efficient than IM for 9 years. I didn't need some 20-something telling me that.

You said that estrogen levels were lower when injecting exogenous test subQ versus injecting IM. I asked you to produce some support of your position.

Stay on point, sparky. You get too rattled way too fast.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mr. Walkway
Level

Join date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3404

drunkpig wrote:
LMAO. Dude if you had a fucking clue who you were waxing expert with...well...you obviously don't.

If your "small number of people in the steroid community" doesn't include IBBF pro's and contest prep experts - then step the fuck off because I could give a rat's ass who your friends are.



drunkpig wrote:
You get too rattled way too fast.



anyways.. my claim that others estrogen levels have been lower while using Subq pinning were based upon their blood results.. since that is not good enough for you, I have nothing more to say on this topic.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report