@dr.dickshard's injection method claims, fact-checked

What did @dr.dickshard actually say?

The claim is blunt: inject testosterone into muscle, not belly fat, because it "absorbs faster, hits harder, and actually does what the fuck it's supposed to." Subcutaneous injections, in his framing, produce "weak ass testosterone trickling through your love handles." That's a strong position, and it's worth checking against the actual data before 42,000 people change how they inject.

To be fair, intramuscular (IM) injection has been the traditional standard for testosterone cypionate and enanthate for decades. The creator isn't inventing this preference. But the framing that subcutaneous (SubQ) is categorically inferior is where the science gets messier than his delivery suggests.

Does the science back this up?

Partially. IM does produce faster absorption and higher peak serum levels, but that's not the whole story. A 2017 study by Olsson et al. in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism found that subcutaneous testosterone delivered comparable steady-state serum levels to IM, just with a slower, flatter absorption curve. For many patients, that flatter curve is actually preferable, reducing the peaks and troughs that cause mood swings, energy crashes, and hematocrit spikes.

A 2021 review by Spratt et al. in Therapeutic Advances in Urology noted that SubQ is increasingly used in clinical practice with equivalent testosterone delivery when dosed appropriately. The word "equivalently" matters here. It isn't that SubQ is weaker. It's that it behaves differently, and for some patients, more predictably.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

He got the pharmacokinetics directionally right but drew the wrong conclusion. Yes, IM hits faster and peaks higher. That part is accurate. Where he goes wrong is treating that as unambiguously better. Higher peaks mean sharper troughs. Patients on IM injections often report feeling great days two and three, then sluggish by day six or seven. That's the cypionate half-life at work, not a feature.

The "weak ass testosterone" framing for SubQ is simply inaccurate. Several endocrinology practices have moved toward SubQ precisely because it produces more stable levels, particularly for patients doing twice-weekly or more frequent injections. The needle size is smaller, injection site pain is lower, and patient compliance tends to be better. None of that suggests a weaker or inferior outcome.

He also doesn't mention that SubQ has a lower risk of hitting nerves or blood vessels, which is a real practical consideration, especially for self-injecting patients without clinical training.

What should you actually know?

The honest answer is that neither route is universally superior. The right choice depends on your injection frequency, your body composition, your hematocrit trends, and how you personally respond to testosterone's peak-trough cycle. A patient doing weekly injections on a high dose may tolerate IM well. A patient doing twice-weekly microdosing may find SubQ more stable and less irritating.

Injection site matters too. Glute IM injections reach deep vascular muscle. Ventroglute and vastus lateralis are also common IM sites. SubQ is typically done in the abdomen or thigh with a short, fine-gauge needle. Absorption from SubQ in the abdomen is well-documented and clinically used in insulin delivery for decades, so the idea that belly fat is a dead zone for absorption doesn't hold up.

If you're on TRT through a legitimate prescribing provider, this is a conversation to have with them. Injection method is a clinical variable, not a bro-culture purity test.