Pecs are easy. Or sc Subcutaneous Gear?
As most ARU readers are very aware, oil-based anabolic steroids are typically given by deep intramuscular injection. According to the traditional wisdom, accidental injection into the fat layer that sits beneath the skin and above the muscle (subcutaneous) greatly impairs steroid absorption. As such, it is said that an injection here may delay the dissipation of drugs for many weeks or months, essentially negating the benefits of therapy. At least that was the general knowledge of steroid injections until very recently. Things have a way of changing and in this regard indeed, it appears they have. This statement stems from a study conducted at the reproductive endocrine clinic at Royal Victoria Hospital in Canada, which put the traditional steroid injection wisdom to the test with the first up-close look at the viability of subcutaneous shots (Saudi Med J, 2006 Dec;27(12):1843-6).The study took place between January and December 2002, although the data itself was published less than a year ago. The study involved 22 patients who were using the clinic for androgen (testosterone) replacement therapy. The drug used was testosterone enanthate, which remains the most commonly prescribed form of injectable testosterone today. Instead of traditional intramuscular (IM) injections of enanthate, which are usually given once every two weeks in order to maintain physiological testosterone levels, the subjects were instructed to self-administer their testosterone subcutaneously once per week. The same 1mL that would have been injected intramuscularly once every two weeks was divided into weekly injections of .5mL. So aside from changing the schedule to once per week, the same total amount of drug was used for this study. The results seem to have put an end to the former IM-only understanding of oil-based steroid injections. Blood tests on patients, which were conducted periodically throughout the one-year investigation, were surprisingly and unquestionably consistent. For exactly 100 percent of patients enrolled, testosterone levels remained in the physiological (normal) range for the entire duration of study. This included both peak and trough levels (high and low periods during each week). Furthermore, the injections were extremely well tolerated. Even though the study took place for a full year and each patient took over 50 injections during that time period, not a single adverse reaction was noticed at the site of injection. The investigators concluded that not only was subcutaneous testosterone enanthate a viable option as far as drug release and distribution is concerned, but also that it was safe, cheap and far more convenient and comfortable for their patients compared to intramuscular injections. So what does this mean for the average gear user? Well, it may not be realistic to inject a full-throttle cycle via the subcutaneous route. Remember, patients here were injecting .5mL per week. As well all know (be it safe or not) there are many steroid users who far exceed this volume/dosage on a weekly basis. It also does not necessarily mean that the subcutaneous route will be viable for every oil-based drug, even in low to moderate doses. After all, it is possible that some anabolic steroids, either based on their preservatives, carriers, concentrations or natural properties of the active substances, may be more irritating to local tissues when given subcutaneously. A more in-depth study, or a great deal of anecdotal experimentation, would be required to better answer this question. Still, the possibility of a subcutaneously administered cycle cannot be excluded, especially for those using more reasonable steroid doses ~ 1 mL per week.
..................11