posted Tue, 08/23/2016 - 06:30
3008
What's your opinion of intramusclar vs subcutaneous injection
ad
OK, so I have to stop doing subq injections because Im starting to get some shit built up from constantly injecting into the same spot and I need my abs to look good not fucked up with lumps on them. But I just starting doing all 5iu of hGh that I do per day in one intramuscular injection. What do I lose by doing it intramuscular if anything? How does it affect absorption and elimination. If anyone knows anything useful I would be grateful.
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
You can inject sub q literally anywhere you have a bit of fat to pinch. I prefer sub q but the difference between sub q and im is just a few minutes of hormone release time.
You don't have to only inject subcutaneously into your stomach area - there are the love-handle areas and that pad of fat that few people see just above the equipment.
veriesxYeah I just went back to regular sub-q injections. My stomach is looking fine and I didn't have any site irritation. Im happy with the GH that I have been using (Godtropin). Its really good shit and I got 480iu of it so Im good for like 4 months.
veriesxYeah I guess I take from the study that there was no difference in IGF-1 stimulation by either intramuscular vs subcutaneous injections. I would actually prefer subq but my stomach has some lumps on it that I need to get rid of asap. So Im going to stay with intramuscular injections of hGH for now.
Good read below...rotate your injection sites.
Sometimes the solution to a problem is just to obvious I guess
Oh I know...have to praise BFG and his site for allowing proper education and patient safety to flourish....
So I should inject directly into my pee hole correct? 18ga 1.5in should do the trick.
As long as that spot is in your rotation schedule you should be fine.
Lol I cringe when I actually picture something like that happening. That would be some straight tortuous shit.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4034296
Subcutaneous versus intramuscular growth hormone therapy: growth and acute somatomedin response.
To determine the optimal route of growth hormone administration, a comparison was made of the acute somatomedin response and chronic growth response to either intramuscular or subcutaneous growth hormone in 20 children with growth hormone deficiency. None of the children had received growth hormone for at least 2 weeks prior to their random selection to receive growth hormone by either the subcutaneous (N = 11) or intramuscular (N = 9) route. Plasma samples for determination of levels of insulin-like growth factors I and II (IGF-I and IGF-II) were obtained prior to therapy and 20 hours after the first and fourth of four daily injections of growth hormone. Growth rate and growth hormone antibody levels were determined before and after 6 months of therapy. IGF-I levels tripled in both treatment groups after four days of growth hormone injections, whereas IGF-II levels nearly doubled, with no significant difference between the intramuscular or subcutaneous group. After 6 months of therapy, there was no significant difference in growth rate and only two patients had developed growth hormone antibodies. Both patients and parents expressed a preference for the subcutaneous method. The identical rises in the IGF-I and IGF-II levels following a brief course of either subcutaneous or intramuscular injections of growth hormone, the similar growth rates, the low incidence of antibody development, and the preference for the subcutaneous route all suggest that the subcutaneous route is the method of choice for chronic growth hormone therapy.
I found this to be an interesting read.
Good find.
Thanks bro