SubQ might not doing it for me

[Cataceous]

This study had a sample of 3 for IM. Not statistically relevant at all. Plus ask most of the users here. When they double or halved their dosages if their TT doubled and halved as well. It is not linear.

You're reading the wrong number. N=10 for IM.

What any one individual reports on a forum is at best unreliable. And surely you've seen the study on large inter-injection measurement variations. I hope you're not proposing that we just tabulate what people on the Internet tell you and call it science.

 

[HealthMan]

I am going to share my levels (study of N=1)
Testosterone Cypionate 70mg twice a week = TT 1330
Testosterone Cypionate 60mg twice a week = TT 1300
Testosterone Cypionate 55mg twice a week = TT 830

 

[HealthMan]

You're reading the wrong number. N=10 for IM.

What any one individual reports on a forum is at best unreliable. And surely you've seen the study on large inter-injection measurement variations. I hope you're not proposing that we just tabulate what people on the Internet tell you and call it science.

You are correct is misread. Still. Sample size of 10 is not statistically significant. Look at the standard deviation of the sample. Crazy. The 200mg group has a average of 1658.7 and standard deviation of 1001.8

 

[HealthMan]

You're reading the wrong number. N=10 for IM.

What any one individual reports on a forum is at best unreliable. And surely you've seen the study on large inter-injection measurement variations. I hope you're not proposing that we just tabulate what people on the Internet tell you and call it science.

I have a friend that owns a TRT clinic. This is where my anedoctal evidence comes from. Hundres of patients. If you increase the dosage testosterone levels increase but not in a linear way. But i guess we have to agree to disagree. That is fine.

 

[Cataceous]

I have a friend that owns a TRT clinic. This is where my anedoctal evidence comes from. Hundres of patients. If you increase the dosage testosterone levels increase but not in a linear way. But i guess we have to agree to disagree. That is fine.

Controlled studies have repeatedly demonstrated a linear relationship between AOC and dose with IM injections of testosterone esters. If you'd like to postulate a new and different kind of pharmacokinetics then have at it. Once you get it published I'll take an interest.

 

[HealthMan]

Controlled studies have repeatedly demonstrated a linear relationship between AOC and dose with IM injections of testosterone esters. If you'd like to postulate a new and different kind of pharmacokinetics then have at it. Once you get it published I'll take an interest.

It is linear in the sense that if you increase the dosage it will increase total testosterone. But you have to look at R2. What i am saying is if you increase dosage from Y to kY your testosterone will not necessarily increase from X to kX. It can increase by a percentage of that. A linear model will get a linear relationship with a very scattered plot. In that sense there is a linear relationship.
I was keeping the conversation not technical but you seem to have a good understanding of statistics so now you get my point.

 

[Cataceous]

It is linear in the sense that if you increase the dosage it will increase total testosterone. But you have to look at R2. What i am saying is if you increase dosage from Y to kY your testosterone will not necessarily increase from X to kX. It can increase by a percentage of that. A linear model will get a linear relationship with a very scattered plot. In that sense there is a linear relationship.
I was keeping the conversation not technical but you seem to have a good understanding of statistics so now you get my point.

Please be as technical as possible. Linear in a mathematical sense does not simply mean one parameter is increasing monotonically with the other. Are you referring to measurement errors and other noise to account for scattering about a straight line, or are you proposing different pharmacokinetics than what is pretty widely accepted?

 

[Cataceous]

You are correct is misread. Still. Sample size of 10 is not statistically significant. Look at the standard deviation of the sample. Crazy. The 200mg group has a average of 1658.7 and standard deviation of 1001.8

This is incorrect, or at least misleading. With the subQ AOCs it appears that about 200 measurements went into each number. So certainly statistically significant.

 

[HealthMan]

Please be as technical as possible. Linear in a mathematical sense does not simply mean one parameter is increasing monotonically with the other. Are you referring to measurement errors and other noise to account for scattering about a straight line, or are you proposing different pharmacokinetics than what is pretty widely accepted?

What i am saying the study you posted is looking at ratios. And saying that the ratios are close to 2 for the average. Which means that a double in dosage will yield a double in testosterone levels. But they are looking at the average of a sample that has a huge standard deviation. If you look at each individual at different dosages that will give you some more interesting results. The R2 is problematic. The relationship from a statistical point of view is linear. But with a problematic R2 and poor forecasting If you use the regression to do one. Average can explain only so much.

 

[HealthMan]

My point is (we got distracted with side discussions). With this study alone you can’t say that Xmg of testosterone injected Subq vs IM will produce the same testosterone levels in all individuals. You are looking at averages of a population with a massive standard deviation. A perfect study would be to look at diferentes dosages and methods for every single individual of the population (i.e individual A using 50mg, 100mg and 200mg IM and Subq). Again the prediction power of a equation derived from this sample will be extremely poor (the study you posted).

 

[Cataceous]

My point is (we got distracted with side discussions). With this study alone you can’t say that Xmg of testosterone injected Subq vs IM will produce the same testosterone levels in all individuals.

That's absolutely what I'm saying, though I'm talking about average levels within an individual. Obviously different individuals can get vastly different serum levels from the same doses. The anecdotal stuff is next to useless, because it's mostly single measurements, and these are even in theory different between subQ and IM. Add in the measurement variations and noise and you can have people believing virtually anything.

Now in arguing my case I am neglecting possible subtleties, slight variations in MCR caused by differing hormone levels over time, etc. But the evidence suggests these effects are small, and the message most guys should get is that your average testosterone level is proportional to your doses, and average testosterone levels are basically going to be the same for subQ and IM. This doesn't mean the outcome is necessarily the same. Peaks and troughs are dampened with subQ, which is more significant as the injection cycle gets to be on the order of the ester half-life and beyond. It's starting to go beyond speculation that peak hormone levels may have an importance of their own.

 

[HealthMan]

This is incorrect, or at least misleading. With the subQ AOCs it appears that about 200 measurements went into each number. So certainly statistically significant.

It is statistically significant for the sample population in the study. It is not statistically significant for the overall population. For that to be true you need a larger population. Taking 1000 measurements in 10 individuals does not make this statistically significant for the overall population.
But I get your point and i think you get mine. It is ok to disagree. It was nonetheless a very good conversation

 

[BJE]

I think there is little importance in whether SQ or IM has a better absorption rate.

If you want to do SQ, and I would suggest you do since it’s much easier and virtually painless, just do it, check your T levels and adjust accordingly.

 

[HealthMan]

Actually to mention, my dose was increased last month from .35ml 2 x week to the current .27ml 3 x week. That increased my FT only 3 pg/ml

My example. Testosterone Cypionate for a total of 140mg a week my total testosterone was ~ 1300. Subq for a total of 150mg a week my total testosterone was ~ 680. I tried subq twice with same disappointing results

 

[Gianluca]

Absorption with subQ is going to be the same, basically 100%. It's the timing of release that's different. However, with frequent injections of a long-lived ester the difference in serum levels should be negligible. Your results are compatible with this. There can be significant inter-test variability, and hCG can make a nontrivial contribution to total testosterone.

Regarding free T, if you use equilibrium dialysis or LC/MS to test then results might be comparable between labs. Otherwise, forget it. Simpler is to always measure SHBG with total T and calculate free T. These numbers should be fairly consistent between labs.

HCG could have probably made some difference, yes both labs used LC/MS, so how do I compare the two?

what would this account on Labcorp scale? FT 213 pg/ml scale 35/155 pg/ml

 

[Gianluca]

I’ve been doing sub q for about seven years. It’s worked great for me. I’ve tried everything from twice weekly injections to daily injections. I’ve settled on twice weekly. I have no problem getting into the high normal or over the top of the range. If you have to inject more to reach your desired level then inject more. However there are indications that more frequent sub q injections keep levels up with a lower dose.

At any rate I prefer to use a 31g 6mm insulin syringe SQ over poking hundreds holes into my muscles.

Also, in my testing, my dose of HCG seems to add 200-300 to my total test level.

what is your HCG protocol? I was doing daily HCG 150IU and If I remember correctly it did not effect my FT levels

 

[madman]

NEW INSIGHTS INTO DRUG ABSORPTION FROM OIL DEPOTS

This dissertation provides new insights into drug absorption from oil depots. Figure 7.1, which was the assumed model before these new findings, is adapted to Figure 7.2. Here, it is shown that the released prodrug (ND) is not hydrolysed locally (Chapter 6), but remains unchanged in interstitial fluid. Here, it is logical to assume that the lipophilic prodrug adheres to small proteins (<40 kDa) and subsequently drained with the interstitial fluid into the lymph vessels. Alternatively, it cannot be excluded that small oil droplets might be detached from the main oil depot (Chapter 4) and cleared through the lymph. In both ways, ND will end up in the final lymph node to enter the vena cava superior to meet blood cells in the central compartment. These blood cells will finally hydrolyse the prodrug compound to nandrolone

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

The open ends of the current research have been indicated above. Both the fate of the oil and the role of the immune system towards drug absorption are still not fully understood. In future research, an option to examine drug release and absorption from an oil depot can be performed with a traceability in vivo study. Ideally, 3 tracers would be integrated in the drug product: 1 in the triglyceride structure of the oil components, 1 in the nandrolone molecule and 1 in the decanoic acid moiety. The distinctiveness between these three tracers and between the tissues must obviously be sufficient enough to determine the three compounds separately. The whole process of drug release, hydrolysis and oil digestion could then be followed. Nowadays, traceability studies can be performed for instance with Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) or PET/MRI-scanners. These imaging techniques use respectively isotopes or fluoride-atoms to visualise compounds in situ. Unfortunately, these labeling materials are unsuitable to use in the suggested traceability study, because these materials will alter the physical-chemical properties of either the oil formulation or the prodrug compound. This may change the oil viscosity, drug partition coefficient, spatial distribution in administered tissue or immune response, which may consequently influence the biopharmaceutical aspects of drug absorption from oil depots when these materials are not applied.








CONCLUSIONS

It is interesting to realize that drug absorption from an oil depot cannot entirely be described by a simple two phase mass transfer model where concentration gradients, diffusion and partition coefficients would enable the calculation of the expected absorption. It is demonstrated in this dissertation that there is a role of the excipient BOH in yielding an initially high absorption. The oil depot forms a continuous phase after injection, but will be dispersed and encapsulated at the injection site after some days. This in turn largely influence the way the prodrug becomes available; after release from the oil depot, it is present in the interstitial fluid which is drained through the lymph into the systemic circulation. Subsequently, the prodrug permeates through the wall of blood cells and is hydrolysed. Both the lymph transport and the cell wall permeation take time which is expressed in a lag time. This lag time is different for each injection site: a subcutaneously administered prodrug will enter the systemic circulation via a short path and at a low drainage flow. This results in a short lag time and a slow absorption rate constant of the prodrug. Deeper administered prodrugs (i.e. intramuscular injections) are suggested to be absorbed via a longer path, but at a higher flow, which results in a longer lag time but a higher absorption rate constant of the prodrug.

 

[madman]

New Insights Into Drug Absorption From Oil Depots- ( Nandrolone Decanoate)

 

[Gianluca]

My example. Testosterone Cypionate for a total of 140mg a week my total testosterone was ~ 1300. Subq for a total of 150mg a week my total testosterone was ~ 680. I tried subq twice with same disappointing results

I think so, I know for sure I need to be over 22 of FT to feel good, and If I try to surpass that number on SubQ I'm not sure how much I should use.

Also last year I was doing 20mg everyday IM, that brought my FT at 30, just switching 2 injections sites per week SubQ lowered my FT at 22, and I thought I felt the difference immediately.

The good thing I have experienced when switching SubQ, is that my face started to look "dryer" and more youthful again, either because my FT lowered or because the much slower absorption of Test, even though I was doing a tiny 20mg daily

 

[Cataceous]

HCG could have probably made some difference, yes both labs used LC/MS, so how do I compare the two?

what would this account on Labcorp scale? FT 213 pg/ml scale 35/155 pg/ml

10 pg/mL = 1 ng/dL. So your number is 21.3 ng/dL. I'm not sure why the LabCorp scale is relatively low, so a direct comparison is still questionable.

For calculated free T some labs say 21 ng/dL is around the top of the normal range. Calculated is also nice because you can look at studies for average numbers. For example, a typical young guy with TT around 650 ng/dL and SHBG of 30 nmol/L has cFT of about 15 ng/dL.