@trtsgtmaj2's testosterone reply video, fact-checked

What did @trtsgtmaj2 actually say?

Barry, who calls himself the "TRT Sergeant Major," is promoting a telehealth TRT service while explaining why he prefers subcutaneous (subQ) injections over intramuscular (IM) ones. His main argument is simple: he "hates needles," so he uses a 31-gauge, 5/16-inch insulin syringe because it is short, thin, and essentially painless. He also explains that you cannot draw oil-based testosterone through such a fine needle, so he uses a separate, larger needle to pull the medication from the vial and then "backfills" the insulin syringe. He lists more injection site options as another reason to prefer subQ, specifically mentioning the glutes. The video is part of a promotional push for his telehealth platform, and the clinical advice is embedded in what is essentially a sales pitch.

Does the science back this up?

On the core question, yes, mostly. SubQ testosterone injection is a legitimate, studied delivery method, not a fringe workaround. The pain-reduction claim holds up well, and absorption data are actually pretty reasonable.

A 2017 study by Spratt et al. published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society found that subQ testosterone cypionate injections produced stable serum testosterone levels comparable to IM delivery, with fewer injection site complaints. A 2010 study by Olsson et al. in Hormone Research in Paediatrics also documented that subQ administration of testosterone enanthate was well-tolerated and effective. The smaller needle gauge genuinely does reduce pain, which is not just anecdote but consistent with injection technique literature. The backfilling method he describes is a real, widely used workaround for viscous oils and fine-gauge needles, though it is worth noting it introduces extra handling steps and a small contamination risk if done carelessly.

What did they get right and wrong?

Credit where it is due: the subQ vs. IM framing is accurate, the needle choice is reasonable, and the backfilling explanation is technically correct.

What he gets wrong, or at least glosses over, is more about omission than fabrication. First, he says "there are more injection site options" with subQ but only mentions glutes. SubQ sites typically include abdomen, thigh, and flank, not just glutes, which are actually a more common IM site. Second, he presents subQ as straightforwardly superior without acknowledging that IM injections produce faster peak levels, which some protocols use intentionally. Third, and most important, the entire clinical rationale for why someone would choose subQ over IM should involve a provider, not a TikTok video. Absorption rates differ between individuals based on subcutaneous fat distribution, and that affects how testosterone levels look on bloodwork. He does not mention monitoring labs at all.

• Backfilling technique: accurate but carries contamination risk if sterile technique is not maintained.
• Pain reduction with 31-gauge needle: well-supported.
• "More injection site options": partially true but oversimplified.
• No mention of lab monitoring: a real gap in an otherwise practical video.

What should you actually know?

If you are considering subQ testosterone injections, the method is legitimate, but the details matter more than this video suggests.

SubQ injections tend to produce slightly lower peak levels and a flatter absorption curve compared to IM, according to a 2021 review by Kaminetsky et al. in Sexual Medicine Reviews. That is not inherently bad, and for many patients it is actually preferable, but it means your provider needs to interpret your bloodwork with the delivery method in mind. A trough level drawn before an IM injection looks different from one drawn before a subQ injection, and dosing decisions should reflect that. The backfilling method is real and practical, but anyone using it should understand basic sterile technique: clean surfaces, no touching the needle, capping between steps. Finally, "painless" is relative. Most people find subQ with an insulin needle very tolerable, but injection site reactions including lumps, itching, and localized swelling do occur and should be reported to a provider, not just pushed through.