Idiot Doctor denies SubQ exists

[CursedFireDean]

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.

[AleksiJason]

Dont go back to him then

[Bimmer Guy]

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

[aleon515]

More efficient just meaning needing a lower dose. NOt meaning better in some other way. We just know it is effective.

--Jay

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.