Susan's Place Logo

News:

Since its founding in 1995 Susan's Place forums have blossomed into a truly global lifeline. To date we've delivered roughly 1.4 billion page views to hundreds of millions of unique visitors, guided more than 41,000 registered members through 1,985,081 posts and 188,474 topics across 193 boards, and—most importantly—helped save tens of thousands of lives by connecting people to vital information and support at their most vulnerable moments.

Main Menu

Idiot Doctor denies SubQ exists

Started by assorted_human, March 19, 2015, 09:22:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

CursedFireDean

#20
April 05, 2015, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Brett on April 05, 2015, 01:36:30 PM
Jay, where did you read it was more efficient?  I know the Spack and Olson studies indicated that outcomes were the same as IM (and that Spack's study said evidence of their being lower doses needed with subq), but I didn't read anything about subq being more efficient?  Or maybe I need to better understand what you mean by "more efficient", here?

I'm not trying to be picky, just want to make sure I have the right information, as I can see myself passing this along to other guys.
I think what Jay means is that it is more efficient because a lower dose is needed to keep levels right. Less is necessary to get levels right, thus it is more efficient.





Check me out on instagram @flammamajor
  •  

AleksiJason

#21
April 05, 2015, 02:08:27 PM
Dont go back to him then
I wasn't holding it open for you, who holds the door open for a man?!?

Well I thought it was a nice gesture....BUT I GUESS I WAS WRONG!!!!!
  •  

Bimmer Guy

#22
April 05, 2015, 05:16:37 PM
Quote from: CursedFireDean on April 05, 2015, 02:02:51 PM
I think what Jay means is that it is more efficient because a lower dose is needed to keep levels right. Less is necessary to get levels right, thus it is more efficient.

Might be what he meant. Just want to see :)
Top Surgery: 10/10/13 (Garramone)
Testosterone: 9/9/14
Hysto: 10/1/15
Stage 1 Meta: 3/2/16 (including UL, Vaginectomy, Scrotoplasty), (Crane, CA)
Stage 2 Meta: 11/11/16 Testicular implants, phallus and scrotum repositioning, v-nectomy revision.  Additional: Lipo on sides of chest. (Crane, TX)
Fistula Repair 12/21/17 (UPenn Hospital,unsuccessful)
Fistula Repair 6/7/18 (Nikolavsky, successful)
Revision: 1/11/19 Replacement of eroded testicle,  mons resection, cosmetic work on scrotum (Crane, TX)
  •  

aleon515

#23
April 06, 2015, 05:21:06 PM
More efficient just meaning needing a lower dose. NOt meaning better in some other way. We just know it is effective.

--Jay

Quote from: Brett on April 05, 2015, 01:36:30 PM
Jay, where did you read it was more efficient?  I know the Spack and Olson studies indicated that outcomes were the same as IM (and that Spack's study said evidence of their being lower doses needed with subq), but I didn't read anything about subq being more efficient?  Or maybe I need to better understand what you mean by "more efficient", here?

I'm not trying to be picky, just want to make sure I have the right information, as I can see myself passing this along to other guys.

As an aside, assorted_ human I use Subq too.  I go to a large clinic and that is standard procedure for testosterone there.
  •  
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions