"Just Inject Bro" - The Nasal / Oral / Topical Stigma DEBUNKED (BOTB)

[MogsMost]

(Thanks to @SlayerJonas for reinstating thread. All love, boyo)

Introduction​

There are too many dumbfucks on this forum who have likely never injected anything claiming that injection is always superior for everything.
MT2? "Just inject bro, nasal is cope." SARMs? "Useless bro, just inject test."

The reality is that oral, nasal, and topical formulations exist for legitimate pharmacological reasons. They're not always better, and they don't always work the same way, but they absolutely have their place.

This guide will debunk the "oral/topical/nasal is cope" myth once and for all so I never have to read that stupid shit again. If you are one of these dudes who just says "inject bro" on every single thread about an oral/topical, kill yourself right now today. Or read this and consider not spamming that everywhere because you look like a retard to anyone who knows anything about pharmacology.

The Core Issue​

The "injectable is always better" belief stems from legitimate concerns about first-pass metabolism and bioavailability. However, this perspective ignores:

• Compound-specific pharmacokinetics
• Practical considerations and compliance
• Safety profiles
• The fact that many compounds are specifically designed for optimal performance via non-injectable routes

In other words: no, don't "just inject bro."

​

​

Part 1: Anabolic Steroids​

When Oral Is Optimal (Or Even Superior)​

Anavar (Oxandrolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~97%
• Why oral works: 17-alpha-alkylation protects against first-pass metabolism
• Injectable advantage: None. You're just adding injection site complications for zero benefit
• Verdict: Oral is objectively better

Dianabol (Methandrostenolone)

• Oral bioavailability: 50-90%
• Why oral works: Rapid onset and short half-life make oral dosing ideal for quick titration
• Key benefit: Easy to cease if side effects occur
• Verdict: Oral is the designed and preferred route

Winstrol (Stanozolol)

• Oral bioavailability: ~30-40%
• Why oral is preferred: Injectable version causes painful injection site reactions
• Trade-off consideration: Lower bioavailability is worth avoiding the pain
• Verdict: Most users prefer oral despite lower bioavailability

The 17-Alpha-Alkylation Trade-off: Yes, it increases hepatotoxicity. That's the intentional trade-off for oral bioavailability. Hepatic stress in exchange for not needing injections. Injectable versions of these compounds completely defeat this design purpose.

When Injectable Is Actually Superior​

Testosterone

• Oral bioavailability: <7% (essentially worthless)
• Injectable bioavailability: ~100%
• Why injection is necessary: Rapid hepatic metabolism destroys oral testosterone
• Verdict: Injectable is mandatory

Nandrolone Decanoate (Deca)

• Why injection works: Long ester provides stable blood levels with weekly/biweekly injections
• Oral alternative: None exists
• Verdict: Injectable is the only option

Trenbolone

• Oral bioavailability: 0% (complete first-pass destruction)
• Why injection is necessary: Molecular structure requires it
• Verdict: Injectable is the only viable route

Key Takeaway: These compounds lack the structural modifications necessary for oral bioavailability. Their chemistry necessitates injection, unlike the alkylated steroids above.

​

​

Part 2: SARMs​

The Truth About SARMs​

Critical fact: SARMs were specifically developed as oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Converting them to injectables contradicts their entire design purpose.
Ostarine (MK-2866)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Specifically engineered for oral administration
• Half-life: 24 hours with excellent absorption
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Ligandrol (LGD-4033)

• Oral bioavailability: Near 100%
• Key feature: Resists first-pass metabolism without hepatotoxic alkylation
• Injectable advantage: Zero

RAD-140 (Testolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Optimised for oral use
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Don't Inject SARMs​

• No bioavailability advantage - Already have excellent oral absorption (80-100%)
• No half-life benefit - Injectable versions don't extend duration of action
• Added complications - Injection site reactions, sterility concerns, increased cost
• Research disconnect - All clinical data uses oral administration

Bottom line: Anyone telling you to inject SARMs either doesn't understand pharmacology or is selling you something. The entire point of SARMs was to avoid injections. Additionally, there are people that will say "just inject test bro" as if this doesn't completely defeat the purpose of doing SARMs in the first place. Testosterone ages you, gives you androgenic side effects, forces you to deal with aromatisation into DHT/E (which you then have to combat as well), forces you to inject, fucks with your fertility, and essentially locks you into a lifelong contract of injections. Anyone who has done T will tell you that they do not advise you to stop after you start. If you are one of the people who say "just do test bro" you are a retard. You may think test is better, in a lot of cases the efficacy probably is, but it does not come without it's drawbacks, and there are clear reasons why someone would choose to do a SARM over injectable T. There is nuance to these decisions.

​

​

Part 3: Peptides​

Peptides That Require Injection (Most of Them)​

Growth Hormone (GH)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Gastric acid and digestive enzymes completely destroy it; molecular weight (22 kDa) prevents absorption
• Route: Subcutaneous or intramuscular only

IGF-1

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Same as GH—complete digestive destruction
• Route: Injection only

Ipamorelin

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Complete degradation before reaching systemic circulation
• Route: Subcutaneous

CJC-1295

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: 30 amino acid structure makes oral administration completely ineffective
• Route: Subcutaneous

TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Route: Injection for systemic availability

Peptides are amino acid chains susceptible to protease degradation in the GI tract. Their large molecular size prevents passive absorption through intestinal membranes, and stomach acid destroys peptide bonds.

The Exceptions: Peptides Where Nasal/Topical Actually Work​

Melanotan II (MT2)

• Nasal bioavailability: Viable and effective
• Why nasal works: Nasal mucosa allows adequate absorption despite being destroyed orally
• Injectable bioavailability: Higher, but nasal is sufficient for desired effects

Why many prefer nasal MT2:

• Provides adequate bioavailability for tanning
• Avoids injection anxiety and technique requirements
• Prevents injection site hyperpigmentation (dark spots where you inject)
• More convenient for daily use
• Still allows dose adjustment by number of sprays

The reality is that many users achieve identical tanning results with nasal MT2. If it works for your goals, nasal is objectively better for you. Bioavailability percentages don't matter if you get the result you want. I see a lot of "just inject bro" when people talk about nasal MT2. Again, you're a fucking retard. It is worth actually trying to find a nasal version of MT2 instead of just settling for subq because it's easier.

PT-141

• Original formulation: Nasal spray for sexual dysfunction
• Key point: Nasal route demonstrated sufficient bioavailability for CNS effects

Oxytocin

• Nasal bioavailability: Effective for CNS effects
• Why nasal works: Bypasses blood-brain barrier issues
• Route preference: Nasal is standard

Desmopressin

• Nasal bioavailability: 10-20% (sufficient for therapeutic effect)
• Status: FDA-approved nasal formulation
• Verdict: Nasal is proven and preferred

GHK-Cu (Copper Peptide)
For skin/cosmetic purposes:

• Route: Topical
• Why topical is better: Delivers compound directly to target tissue
• Effectiveness: Highly effective for skin healing, collagen synthesis, and anti-aging
• Verdict: Injecting GHK-Cu for skin benefits is wasteful

For systemic anti-aging/healing:

• Route: Injectable
• Why injection is necessary: Topical won't achieve therapeutic blood levels
• Oral bioavailability: 0% (peptide bond degradation)
• Verdict: Injection required for systemic effects

"Better" is entirely context-dependent. Same compound, different optimal route based on your goal.

BPC-157

• Systemic effects: Require subcutaneous injection
• Topical application: Some evidence for localised healing (less studied)
• Oral for gut healing: Claims exist but oral bioavailability for systemic effects is negligible
• Verdict: Injection for systemic benefits, topical potentially for localised injury

Nasal Administration Summary​

Advantages:

• Avoids first-pass metabolism
• Rapid absorption through nasal mucosa
• Potential direct CNS delivery
• Non-invasive
• Self-administration friendly
• Avoids injection site complications (including hyperpigmentation with MT2)

Limitations:

• Generally lower bioavailability than injection (but often sufficient)
• Requires proper technique and spray formulation
• Not suitable for all peptides
• May cause nasal irritation with frequent use
• Less precise dosing control

​

​

Part 4: Practical Considerations​

Real-World Factors​

Oral dosing is easier to maintain consistently. Injection anxiety, injection site rotation requirements, and technique errors reduce the real-world effectiveness of injectable protocols. A compound you actually take consistently at 80% bioavailability beats a compound you skip doses of at 100% bioavailability.
Short-acting compounds benefit from oral admin.

​

An Example: The MT2 Decision​

This perfectly illustrates the nuance:
Injectable MT2:

• Precise dosing (start at 100-250 mcg)
• Can carefully titrate to minimise nausea
• Higher bioavailability
• BUT: Requires reconstitution, sterile technique, proper storage
• Risk of injection site hyperpigmentation

Nasal MT2

• Adequate bioavailability for tanning
• More convenient for daily use
• No injection site dark spots
• No needle anxiety
• Adjustable by number of sprays
• BUT: Less precise, potential nasal irritation

Many users achieve identical results with nasal. If that's you, nasal is objectively superior despite "lower bioavailability."

Risk-Benefit Analysis​

Injectable risks:

• Injection site infections
• Nerve damage
• Scarring and lipohypertrophy
• Contamination risks
• Looking like a heroin addict
• Reconstituting / storing solutions
• Injection site hyperpigmentation (MT2, certain steroids)

Oral risks:

• Hepatotoxicity (predictable and monitorable)
  • While oral alkylated steroids stress the liver, this is predictable, dose-dependent, and monitorable with bloodwork. Injection complications can include abscesses requiring surgical drainage, permanent nerve damage, and embolic events from oil-based solutions. Which is "safer"? Depends on the individual and the compound. These risks must be weighed against bioavailability gains, which for many compounds are minimal or nonexistent.

​

​

​

Part 5: Conclusions and Recommendations​

Decision Framework​

Choose Injectable When:

• Non-alkylated steroids (testosterone, nandrolone, trenbolone)
• Peptides without stable oral/nasal formulations (GH, IGF-1, most peptides)
• Long-acting protocols are desired (esterified compounds)
• The compound has poor oral bioavailability (<30%) and no viable other route
• Precise dosing is critical

Choose Oral When:

• Alkylated steroids (Anavar, Dianabol, Anadrol, Winstrol)
• ALL SARMs (they're designed for it)
• Rapid titration is needed
• Injection site complications have occurred
• Compliance concerns exist
• You want flexibility in dosing

Choose Nasal When:

• Peptides with proven nasal formulations (MT2, PT-141, oxytocin, desmopressin)
• CNS-targeted effects are desired
• You achieve desired results with nasal (like MT2 for tanning)
• You want to avoid injection site hyperpigmentation
• Convenience and compliance are priorities
• Injection anxiety

Choose Topical When:

• Localised effects are the goal (GHK-Cu for skin, potentially BPC-157 for injuries)
• Delivering compound directly to target tissue (skin, specific injury site)
• Systemic absorption is not required for your purpose

Final Thoughts​

The blanket statement that "injectable is always better" is pharmacologically naive and practically ignorant. Modern pharmaceutical chemistry has produced compounds specifically optimised for non-injectable routes.

SARMs exist precisely because scientists wanted oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Oral steroids are 17-alpha-alkylated specifically to make them orally bioavailable. MT2 works nasally. GHK-Cu works topically for skin.

The goal of this guide was to put it out there that, just because something isn't an injectable, doesn't mean it is useless. And just because someone is choosing a non-injectable, doesn't mean they're retarded. In fact, it is most likely YOU, that is the retard.

I haven't even discussed things like minoxidil, finasteride or RU58841 in this, when all of those are proven to work in non-injectable formats, and sometimes in both oral and topical formats. There is no one best way to do everything. Discounting the advantages of non-injectables is just genuinely more retarded than I can put into words.

Keep in mind, the dudes who are telling you to inject are likely under the age of 18 and have never even looked at an insulin needle.

Thanks.

 

[SlayerJonas]

It's good that the "injectable or death" is heavily pushed, because that's what's correct for 99% of peptides discussed here.

For nootropics and some other peptides nasal administration is better. For GHK-Cu (e.g. with solvent pH 7.2-7.4) this might be explorable as well.

 

[imontheloose]

It's good that the "injectable or death" is heavily pushed, because that's what's correct for 99% of peptides discussed here.

For nootropics and some other peptides nasal administration is better. For GHK-Cu (e.g. with solvent pH 7.2-7.4) this might be explorable as well.

Inject or suicide.

 

[SlayerJonas]

Inject or suicide.

Administration route for suicide?

 

[imontheloose]

Administration route for suicide?

Lethal injection.

 

[Deleted member 104891]

High iq thread

 

[MogsMost]

It's good that the "injectable or death" is heavily pushed, because that's what's correct for 99% of peptides discussed here.

For nootropics and some other peptides nasal administration is better. For GHK-Cu (e.g. with solvent pH 7.2-7.4) this might be explorable as well.

If it is designed to be injected, inject it.

Many things can be taken through various routes, and for people who don't want to inject, the option is open.

Obviously I am not trying to say "start taking XYZ compound orally" if it simply does not work.

But there is a lot of anti-oral/anti-topical echochamber going on, especially for things like MT2 or just SARMs in general.

Each have their positives and negatives.

 

[holy]

Thanks, GPT.

 

[MogsMost]

Thanks, GPT.

Check my post history faggot I do this shit for fun

Just because a thread is more than a googleable question doesn't mean AI wrote it.

 

[holy]

Check my post history faggot I do this shit for fun

Just because a thread is more than a googleable question doesn't mean AI wrote it.

Post history doesn't prove you didn't use ChatGPT btw. Similar formatting. Similar sentence structure. Fucking hilarious

 

[MogsMost]

Post history doesn't prove you didn't use ChatGPT btw. Similar formatting. Similar sentence structure. Fucking hilarious

Sigh

 

[vision_n]

idc if you used ai for this
good shit

 

[MogsMost]

Millions must read

 

[MindOfBeni]

good thread but dnr

 

[Napoleon1800]

(Thanks to @SlayerJonas for reinstating thread. All love, boyo)

Introduction​

There are too many dumbfucks on this forum who have likely never injected anything claiming that injection is always superior for everything.
MT2? "Just inject bro, nasal is cope." SARMs? "Useless bro, just inject test."

The reality is that oral, nasal, and topical formulations exist for legitimate pharmacological reasons. They're not always better, and they don't always work the same way, but they absolutely have their place.

This guide will debunk the "oral/topical/nasal is cope" myth once and for all so I never have to read that stupid shit again. If you are one of these dudes who just says "inject bro" on every single thread about an oral/topical, kill yourself right now today. Or read this and consider not spamming that everywhere because you look like a retard to anyone who knows anything about pharmacology.

The Core Issue​

The "injectable is always better" belief stems from legitimate concerns about first-pass metabolism and bioavailability. However, this perspective ignores:

• Compound-specific pharmacokinetics
• Practical considerations and compliance
• Safety profiles
• The fact that many compounds are specifically designed for optimal performance via non-injectable routes

In other words: no, don't "just inject bro."

​

​

Part 1: Anabolic Steroids​

When Oral Is Optimal (Or Even Superior)​

Anavar (Oxandrolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~97%
• Why oral works: 17-alpha-alkylation protects against first-pass metabolism
• Injectable advantage: None. You're just adding injection site complications for zero benefit
• Verdict: Oral is objectively better

Dianabol (Methandrostenolone)

• Oral bioavailability: 50-90%
• Why oral works: Rapid onset and short half-life make oral dosing ideal for quick titration
• Key benefit: Easy to cease if side effects occur
• Verdict: Oral is the designed and preferred route

Winstrol (Stanozolol)

• Oral bioavailability: ~30-40%
• Why oral is preferred: Injectable version causes painful injection site reactions
• Trade-off consideration: Lower bioavailability is worth avoiding the pain
• Verdict: Most users prefer oral despite lower bioavailability

The 17-Alpha-Alkylation Trade-off: Yes, it increases hepatotoxicity. That's the intentional trade-off for oral bioavailability. Hepatic stress in exchange for not needing injections. Injectable versions of these compounds completely defeat this design purpose.

When Injectable Is Actually Superior​

Testosterone

• Oral bioavailability: <7% (essentially worthless)
• Injectable bioavailability: ~100%
• Why injection is necessary: Rapid hepatic metabolism destroys oral testosterone
• Verdict: Injectable is mandatory

Nandrolone Decanoate (Deca)

• Why injection works: Long ester provides stable blood levels with weekly/biweekly injections
• Oral alternative: None exists
• Verdict: Injectable is the only option

Trenbolone

• Oral bioavailability: 0% (complete first-pass destruction)
• Why injection is necessary: Molecular structure requires it
• Verdict: Injectable is the only viable route

Key Takeaway: These compounds lack the structural modifications necessary for oral bioavailability. Their chemistry necessitates injection, unlike the alkylated steroids above.

​

​

Part 2: SARMs​

The Truth About SARMs​

Critical fact: SARMs were specifically developed as oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Converting them to injectables contradicts their entire design purpose.
Ostarine (MK-2866)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Specifically engineered for oral administration
• Half-life: 24 hours with excellent absorption
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Ligandrol (LGD-4033)

• Oral bioavailability: Near 100%
• Key feature: Resists first-pass metabolism without hepatotoxic alkylation
• Injectable advantage: Zero

RAD-140 (Testolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Optimised for oral use
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Don't Inject SARMs​

• No bioavailability advantage - Already have excellent oral absorption (80-100%)
• No half-life benefit - Injectable versions don't extend duration of action
• Added complications - Injection site reactions, sterility concerns, increased cost
• Research disconnect - All clinical data uses oral administration

Bottom line: Anyone telling you to inject SARMs either doesn't understand pharmacology or is selling you something. The entire point of SARMs was to avoid injections. Additionally, there are people that will say "just inject test bro" as if this doesn't completely defeat the purpose of doing SARMs in the first place. Testosterone ages you, gives you androgenic side effects, forces you to deal with aromatisation into DHT/E (which you then have to combat as well), forces you to inject, fucks with your fertility, and essentially locks you into a lifelong contract of injections. Anyone who has done T will tell you that they do not advise you to stop after you start. If you are one of the people who say "just do test bro" you are a retard. You may think test is better, in a lot of cases the efficacy probably is, but it does not come without it's drawbacks, and there are clear reasons why someone would choose to do a SARM over injectable T. There is nuance to these decisions.

​

​

Part 3: Peptides​

Peptides That Require Injection (Most of Them)​

Growth Hormone (GH)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Gastric acid and digestive enzymes completely destroy it; molecular weight (22 kDa) prevents absorption
• Route: Subcutaneous or intramuscular only

IGF-1

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Same as GH—complete digestive destruction
• Route: Injection only

Ipamorelin

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Complete degradation before reaching systemic circulation
• Route: Subcutaneous

CJC-1295

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: 30 amino acid structure makes oral administration completely ineffective
• Route: Subcutaneous

TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Route: Injection for systemic availability

Peptides are amino acid chains susceptible to protease degradation in the GI tract. Their large molecular size prevents passive absorption through intestinal membranes, and stomach acid destroys peptide bonds.

The Exceptions: Peptides Where Nasal/Topical Actually Work​

Melanotan II (MT2)

• Nasal bioavailability: Viable and effective
• Why nasal works: Nasal mucosa allows adequate absorption despite being destroyed orally
• Injectable bioavailability: Higher, but nasal is sufficient for desired effects

Why many prefer nasal MT2:

• Provides adequate bioavailability for tanning
• Avoids injection anxiety and technique requirements
• Prevents injection site hyperpigmentation (dark spots where you inject)
• More convenient for daily use
• Still allows dose adjustment by number of sprays

The reality is that many users achieve identical tanning results with nasal MT2. If it works for your goals, nasal is objectively better for you. Bioavailability percentages don't matter if you get the result you want. I see a lot of "just inject bro" when people talk about nasal MT2. Again, you're a fucking retard. It is worth actually trying to find a nasal version of MT2 instead of just settling for subq because it's easier.

PT-141

• Original formulation: Nasal spray for sexual dysfunction
• Key point: Nasal route demonstrated sufficient bioavailability for CNS effects

Oxytocin

• Nasal bioavailability: Effective for CNS effects
• Why nasal works: Bypasses blood-brain barrier issues
• Route preference: Nasal is standard

Desmopressin

• Nasal bioavailability: 10-20% (sufficient for therapeutic effect)
• Status: FDA-approved nasal formulation
• Verdict: Nasal is proven and preferred

GHK-Cu (Copper Peptide)
For skin/cosmetic purposes:

• Route: Topical
• Why topical is better: Delivers compound directly to target tissue
• Effectiveness: Highly effective for skin healing, collagen synthesis, and anti-aging
• Verdict: Injecting GHK-Cu for skin benefits is wasteful

For systemic anti-aging/healing:

• Route: Injectable
• Why injection is necessary: Topical won't achieve therapeutic blood levels
• Oral bioavailability: 0% (peptide bond degradation)
• Verdict: Injection required for systemic effects

"Better" is entirely context-dependent. Same compound, different optimal route based on your goal.

BPC-157

• Systemic effects: Require subcutaneous injection
• Topical application: Some evidence for localised healing (less studied)
• Oral for gut healing: Claims exist but oral bioavailability for systemic effects is negligible
• Verdict: Injection for systemic benefits, topical potentially for localised injury

Nasal Administration Summary​

Advantages:

• Avoids first-pass metabolism
• Rapid absorption through nasal mucosa
• Potential direct CNS delivery
• Non-invasive
• Self-administration friendly
• Avoids injection site complications (including hyperpigmentation with MT2)

Limitations:

• Generally lower bioavailability than injection (but often sufficient)
• Requires proper technique and spray formulation
• Not suitable for all peptides
• May cause nasal irritation with frequent use
• Less precise dosing control

​

​

Part 4: Practical Considerations​

Real-World Factors​

Oral dosing is easier to maintain consistently. Injection anxiety, injection site rotation requirements, and technique errors reduce the real-world effectiveness of injectable protocols. A compound you actually take consistently at 80% bioavailability beats a compound you skip doses of at 100% bioavailability.
Short-acting compounds benefit from oral admin.

​

An Example: The MT2 Decision​

This perfectly illustrates the nuance:
Injectable MT2:

• Precise dosing (start at 100-250 mcg)
• Can carefully titrate to minimise nausea
• Higher bioavailability
• BUT: Requires reconstitution, sterile technique, proper storage
• Risk of injection site hyperpigmentation

Nasal MT2

• Adequate bioavailability for tanning
• More convenient for daily use
• No injection site dark spots
• No needle anxiety
• Adjustable by number of sprays
• BUT: Less precise, potential nasal irritation

Many users achieve identical results with nasal. If that's you, nasal is objectively superior despite "lower bioavailability."

Risk-Benefit Analysis​

Injectable risks:

• Injection site infections
• Nerve damage
• Scarring and lipohypertrophy
• Contamination risks
• Looking like a heroin addict
• Reconstituting / storing solutions
• Injection site hyperpigmentation (MT2, certain steroids)

Oral risks:

• Hepatotoxicity (predictable and monitorable)
  • While oral alkylated steroids stress the liver, this is predictable, dose-dependent, and monitorable with bloodwork. Injection complications can include abscesses requiring surgical drainage, permanent nerve damage, and embolic events from oil-based solutions. Which is "safer"? Depends on the individual and the compound. These risks must be weighed against bioavailability gains, which for many compounds are minimal or nonexistent.

​

​

​

Part 5: Conclusions and Recommendations​

Decision Framework​

Choose Injectable When:

• Non-alkylated steroids (testosterone, nandrolone, trenbolone)
• Peptides without stable oral/nasal formulations (GH, IGF-1, most peptides)
• Long-acting protocols are desired (esterified compounds)
• The compound has poor oral bioavailability (<30%) and no viable other route
• Precise dosing is critical

Choose Oral When:

• Alkylated steroids (Anavar, Dianabol, Anadrol, Winstrol)
• ALL SARMs (they're designed for it)
• Rapid titration is needed
• Injection site complications have occurred
• Compliance concerns exist
• You want flexibility in dosing

Choose Nasal When:

• Peptides with proven nasal formulations (MT2, PT-141, oxytocin, desmopressin)
• CNS-targeted effects are desired
• You achieve desired results with nasal (like MT2 for tanning)
• You want to avoid injection site hyperpigmentation
• Convenience and compliance are priorities
• Injection anxiety

Choose Topical When:

• Localised effects are the goal (GHK-Cu for skin, potentially BPC-157 for injuries)
• Delivering compound directly to target tissue (skin, specific injury site)
• Systemic absorption is not required for your purpose

Final Thoughts​

The blanket statement that "injectable is always better" is pharmacologically naive and practically ignorant. Modern pharmaceutical chemistry has produced compounds specifically optimised for non-injectable routes.

SARMs exist precisely because scientists wanted oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Oral steroids are 17-alpha-alkylated specifically to make them orally bioavailable. MT2 works nasally. GHK-Cu works topically for skin.

The goal of this guide was to put it out there that, just because something isn't an injectable, doesn't mean it is useless. And just because someone is choosing a non-injectable, doesn't mean they're retarded. In fact, it is most likely YOU, that is the retard.

I haven't even discussed things like minoxidil, finasteride or RU58841 in this, when all of those are proven to work in non-injectable formats, and sometimes in both oral and topical formats. There is no one best way to do everything. Discounting the advantages of non-injectables is just genuinely more retarded than I can put into words.

Keep in mind, the dudes who are telling you to inject are likely under the age of 18 and have never even looked at an insulin needle.

Thanks.

Idk why but you give off very loveable energy

I remember your Music thread, very nice work

 

[ihatemySOST]

U lowkey proved that

 

[MogsMost]

Idk why but you give off very loveable energy

I remember your Music thread, very nice work

Why thank you gorgeous. I try.

 

[borchev]

(Thanks to @SlayerJonas for reinstating thread. All love, boyo)

Introduction​

There are too many dumbfucks on this forum who have likely never injected anything claiming that injection is always superior for everything.
MT2? "Just inject bro, nasal is cope." SARMs? "Useless bro, just inject test."

The reality is that oral, nasal, and topical formulations exist for legitimate pharmacological reasons. They're not always better, and they don't always work the same way, but they absolutely have their place.

This guide will debunk the "oral/topical/nasal is cope" myth once and for all so I never have to read that stupid shit again. If you are one of these dudes who just says "inject bro" on every single thread about an oral/topical, kill yourself right now today. Or read this and consider not spamming that everywhere because you look like a retard to anyone who knows anything about pharmacology.

The Core Issue​

The "injectable is always better" belief stems from legitimate concerns about first-pass metabolism and bioavailability. However, this perspective ignores:

• Compound-specific pharmacokinetics
• Practical considerations and compliance
• Safety profiles
• The fact that many compounds are specifically designed for optimal performance via non-injectable routes

In other words: no, don't "just inject bro."

​

​

Part 1: Anabolic Steroids​

When Oral Is Optimal (Or Even Superior)​

Anavar (Oxandrolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~97%
• Why oral works: 17-alpha-alkylation protects against first-pass metabolism
• Injectable advantage: None. You're just adding injection site complications for zero benefit
• Verdict: Oral is objectively better

Dianabol (Methandrostenolone)

• Oral bioavailability: 50-90%
• Why oral works: Rapid onset and short half-life make oral dosing ideal for quick titration
• Key benefit: Easy to cease if side effects occur
• Verdict: Oral is the designed and preferred route

Winstrol (Stanozolol)

• Oral bioavailability: ~30-40%
• Why oral is preferred: Injectable version causes painful injection site reactions
• Trade-off consideration: Lower bioavailability is worth avoiding the pain
• Verdict: Most users prefer oral despite lower bioavailability

The 17-Alpha-Alkylation Trade-off: Yes, it increases hepatotoxicity. That's the intentional trade-off for oral bioavailability. Hepatic stress in exchange for not needing injections. Injectable versions of these compounds completely defeat this design purpose.

When Injectable Is Actually Superior​

Testosterone

• Oral bioavailability: <7% (essentially worthless)
• Injectable bioavailability: ~100%
• Why injection is necessary: Rapid hepatic metabolism destroys oral testosterone
• Verdict: Injectable is mandatory

Nandrolone Decanoate (Deca)

• Why injection works: Long ester provides stable blood levels with weekly/biweekly injections
• Oral alternative: None exists
• Verdict: Injectable is the only option

Trenbolone

• Oral bioavailability: 0% (complete first-pass destruction)
• Why injection is necessary: Molecular structure requires it
• Verdict: Injectable is the only viable route

Key Takeaway: These compounds lack the structural modifications necessary for oral bioavailability. Their chemistry necessitates injection, unlike the alkylated steroids above.

​

​

Part 2: SARMs​

The Truth About SARMs​

Critical fact: SARMs were specifically developed as oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Converting them to injectables contradicts their entire design purpose.
Ostarine (MK-2866)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Specifically engineered for oral administration
• Half-life: 24 hours with excellent absorption
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Ligandrol (LGD-4033)

• Oral bioavailability: Near 100%
• Key feature: Resists first-pass metabolism without hepatotoxic alkylation
• Injectable advantage: Zero

RAD-140 (Testolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Optimised for oral use
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Don't Inject SARMs​

• No bioavailability advantage - Already have excellent oral absorption (80-100%)
• No half-life benefit - Injectable versions don't extend duration of action
• Added complications - Injection site reactions, sterility concerns, increased cost
• Research disconnect - All clinical data uses oral administration

Bottom line: Anyone telling you to inject SARMs either doesn't understand pharmacology or is selling you something. The entire point of SARMs was to avoid injections. Additionally, there are people that will say "just inject test bro" as if this doesn't completely defeat the purpose of doing SARMs in the first place. Testosterone ages you, gives you androgenic side effects, forces you to deal with aromatisation into DHT/E (which you then have to combat as well), forces you to inject, fucks with your fertility, and essentially locks you into a lifelong contract of injections. Anyone who has done T will tell you that they do not advise you to stop after you start. If you are one of the people who say "just do test bro" you are a retard. You may think test is better, in a lot of cases the efficacy probably is, but it does not come without it's drawbacks, and there are clear reasons why someone would choose to do a SARM over injectable T. There is nuance to these decisions.

​

​

Part 3: Peptides​

Peptides That Require Injection (Most of Them)​

Growth Hormone (GH)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Gastric acid and digestive enzymes completely destroy it; molecular weight (22 kDa) prevents absorption
• Route: Subcutaneous or intramuscular only

IGF-1

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Same as GH—complete digestive destruction
• Route: Injection only

Ipamorelin

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Complete degradation before reaching systemic circulation
• Route: Subcutaneous

CJC-1295

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: 30 amino acid structure makes oral administration completely ineffective
• Route: Subcutaneous

TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Route: Injection for systemic availability

Peptides are amino acid chains susceptible to protease degradation in the GI tract. Their large molecular size prevents passive absorption through intestinal membranes, and stomach acid destroys peptide bonds.

The Exceptions: Peptides Where Nasal/Topical Actually Work​

Melanotan II (MT2)

• Nasal bioavailability: Viable and effective
• Why nasal works: Nasal mucosa allows adequate absorption despite being destroyed orally
• Injectable bioavailability: Higher, but nasal is sufficient for desired effects

Why many prefer nasal MT2:

• Provides adequate bioavailability for tanning
• Avoids injection anxiety and technique requirements
• Prevents injection site hyperpigmentation (dark spots where you inject)
• More convenient for daily use
• Still allows dose adjustment by number of sprays

The reality is that many users achieve identical tanning results with nasal MT2. If it works for your goals, nasal is objectively better for you. Bioavailability percentages don't matter if you get the result you want. I see a lot of "just inject bro" when people talk about nasal MT2. Again, you're a fucking retard. It is worth actually trying to find a nasal version of MT2 instead of just settling for subq because it's easier.

PT-141

• Original formulation: Nasal spray for sexual dysfunction
• Key point: Nasal route demonstrated sufficient bioavailability for CNS effects

Oxytocin

• Nasal bioavailability: Effective for CNS effects
• Why nasal works: Bypasses blood-brain barrier issues
• Route preference: Nasal is standard

Desmopressin

• Nasal bioavailability: 10-20% (sufficient for therapeutic effect)
• Status: FDA-approved nasal formulation
• Verdict: Nasal is proven and preferred

GHK-Cu (Copper Peptide)
For skin/cosmetic purposes:

• Route: Topical
• Why topical is better: Delivers compound directly to target tissue
• Effectiveness: Highly effective for skin healing, collagen synthesis, and anti-aging
• Verdict: Injecting GHK-Cu for skin benefits is wasteful

For systemic anti-aging/healing:

• Route: Injectable
• Why injection is necessary: Topical won't achieve therapeutic blood levels
• Oral bioavailability: 0% (peptide bond degradation)
• Verdict: Injection required for systemic effects

"Better" is entirely context-dependent. Same compound, different optimal route based on your goal.

BPC-157

• Systemic effects: Require subcutaneous injection
• Topical application: Some evidence for localised healing (less studied)
• Oral for gut healing: Claims exist but oral bioavailability for systemic effects is negligible
• Verdict: Injection for systemic benefits, topical potentially for localised injury

Nasal Administration Summary​

Advantages:

• Avoids first-pass metabolism
• Rapid absorption through nasal mucosa
• Potential direct CNS delivery
• Non-invasive
• Self-administration friendly
• Avoids injection site complications (including hyperpigmentation with MT2)

Limitations:

• Generally lower bioavailability than injection (but often sufficient)
• Requires proper technique and spray formulation
• Not suitable for all peptides
• May cause nasal irritation with frequent use
• Less precise dosing control

​

​

Part 4: Practical Considerations​

Real-World Factors​

Oral dosing is easier to maintain consistently. Injection anxiety, injection site rotation requirements, and technique errors reduce the real-world effectiveness of injectable protocols. A compound you actually take consistently at 80% bioavailability beats a compound you skip doses of at 100% bioavailability.
Short-acting compounds benefit from oral admin.

​

An Example: The MT2 Decision​

This perfectly illustrates the nuance:
Injectable MT2:

• Precise dosing (start at 100-250 mcg)
• Can carefully titrate to minimise nausea
• Higher bioavailability
• BUT: Requires reconstitution, sterile technique, proper storage
• Risk of injection site hyperpigmentation

Nasal MT2

• Adequate bioavailability for tanning
• More convenient for daily use
• No injection site dark spots
• No needle anxiety
• Adjustable by number of sprays
• BUT: Less precise, potential nasal irritation

Many users achieve identical results with nasal. If that's you, nasal is objectively superior despite "lower bioavailability."

Risk-Benefit Analysis​

Injectable risks:

• Injection site infections
• Nerve damage
• Scarring and lipohypertrophy
• Contamination risks
• Looking like a heroin addict
• Reconstituting / storing solutions
• Injection site hyperpigmentation (MT2, certain steroids)

Oral risks:

• Hepatotoxicity (predictable and monitorable)
  • While oral alkylated steroids stress the liver, this is predictable, dose-dependent, and monitorable with bloodwork. Injection complications can include abscesses requiring surgical drainage, permanent nerve damage, and embolic events from oil-based solutions. Which is "safer"? Depends on the individual and the compound. These risks must be weighed against bioavailability gains, which for many compounds are minimal or nonexistent.

​

​

​

Part 5: Conclusions and Recommendations​

Decision Framework​

Choose Injectable When:

• Non-alkylated steroids (testosterone, nandrolone, trenbolone)
• Peptides without stable oral/nasal formulations (GH, IGF-1, most peptides)
• Long-acting protocols are desired (esterified compounds)
• The compound has poor oral bioavailability (<30%) and no viable other route
• Precise dosing is critical

Choose Oral When:

• Alkylated steroids (Anavar, Dianabol, Anadrol, Winstrol)
• ALL SARMs (they're designed for it)
• Rapid titration is needed
• Injection site complications have occurred
• Compliance concerns exist
• You want flexibility in dosing

Choose Nasal When:

• Peptides with proven nasal formulations (MT2, PT-141, oxytocin, desmopressin)
• CNS-targeted effects are desired
• You achieve desired results with nasal (like MT2 for tanning)
• You want to avoid injection site hyperpigmentation
• Convenience and compliance are priorities
• Injection anxiety

Choose Topical When:

• Localised effects are the goal (GHK-Cu for skin, potentially BPC-157 for injuries)
• Delivering compound directly to target tissue (skin, specific injury site)
• Systemic absorption is not required for your purpose

Final Thoughts​

The blanket statement that "injectable is always better" is pharmacologically naive and practically ignorant. Modern pharmaceutical chemistry has produced compounds specifically optimised for non-injectable routes.

SARMs exist precisely because scientists wanted oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Oral steroids are 17-alpha-alkylated specifically to make them orally bioavailable. MT2 works nasally. GHK-Cu works topically for skin.

The goal of this guide was to put it out there that, just because something isn't an injectable, doesn't mean it is useless. And just because someone is choosing a non-injectable, doesn't mean they're retarded. In fact, it is most likely YOU, that is the retard.

I haven't even discussed things like minoxidil, finasteride or RU58841 in this, when all of those are proven to work in non-injectable formats, and sometimes in both oral and topical formats. There is no one best way to do everything. Discounting the advantages of non-injectables is just genuinely more retarded than I can put into words.

Keep in mind, the dudes who are telling you to inject are likely under the age of 18 and have never even looked at an insulin needle.

Thanks.

Dnr, just inject bro

 

[Aox Ofwar]

(Thanks to @SlayerJonas for reinstating thread. All love, boyo)

Introduction​

There are too many dumbfucks on this forum who have likely never injected anything claiming that injection is always superior for everything.
MT2? "Just inject bro, nasal is cope." SARMs? "Useless bro, just inject test."

The reality is that oral, nasal, and topical formulations exist for legitimate pharmacological reasons. They're not always better, and they don't always work the same way, but they absolutely have their place.

This guide will debunk the "oral/topical/nasal is cope" myth once and for all so I never have to read that stupid shit again. If you are one of these dudes who just says "inject bro" on every single thread about an oral/topical, kill yourself right now today. Or read this and consider not spamming that everywhere because you look like a retard to anyone who knows anything about pharmacology.

The Core Issue​

The "injectable is always better" belief stems from legitimate concerns about first-pass metabolism and bioavailability. However, this perspective ignores:

• Compound-specific pharmacokinetics
• Practical considerations and compliance
• Safety profiles
• The fact that many compounds are specifically designed for optimal performance via non-injectable routes

In other words: no, don't "just inject bro."

​

​

Part 1: Anabolic Steroids​

When Oral Is Optimal (Or Even Superior)​

Anavar (Oxandrolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~97%
• Why oral works: 17-alpha-alkylation protects against first-pass metabolism
• Injectable advantage: None. You're just adding injection site complications for zero benefit
• Verdict: Oral is objectively better

Dianabol (Methandrostenolone)

• Oral bioavailability: 50-90%
• Why oral works: Rapid onset and short half-life make oral dosing ideal for quick titration
• Key benefit: Easy to cease if side effects occur
• Verdict: Oral is the designed and preferred route

Winstrol (Stanozolol)

• Oral bioavailability: ~30-40%
• Why oral is preferred: Injectable version causes painful injection site reactions
• Trade-off consideration: Lower bioavailability is worth avoiding the pain
• Verdict: Most users prefer oral despite lower bioavailability

The 17-Alpha-Alkylation Trade-off: Yes, it increases hepatotoxicity. That's the intentional trade-off for oral bioavailability. Hepatic stress in exchange for not needing injections. Injectable versions of these compounds completely defeat this design purpose.

When Injectable Is Actually Superior​

Testosterone

• Oral bioavailability: <7% (essentially worthless)
• Injectable bioavailability: ~100%
• Why injection is necessary: Rapid hepatic metabolism destroys oral testosterone
• Verdict: Injectable is mandatory

Nandrolone Decanoate (Deca)

• Why injection works: Long ester provides stable blood levels with weekly/biweekly injections
• Oral alternative: None exists
• Verdict: Injectable is the only option

Trenbolone

• Oral bioavailability: 0% (complete first-pass destruction)
• Why injection is necessary: Molecular structure requires it
• Verdict: Injectable is the only viable route

Key Takeaway: These compounds lack the structural modifications necessary for oral bioavailability. Their chemistry necessitates injection, unlike the alkylated steroids above.

​

​

Part 2: SARMs​

The Truth About SARMs​

Critical fact: SARMs were specifically developed as oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Converting them to injectables contradicts their entire design purpose.
Ostarine (MK-2866)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Specifically engineered for oral administration
• Half-life: 24 hours with excellent absorption
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Ligandrol (LGD-4033)

• Oral bioavailability: Near 100%
• Key feature: Resists first-pass metabolism without hepatotoxic alkylation
• Injectable advantage: Zero

RAD-140 (Testolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Optimised for oral use
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Don't Inject SARMs​

• No bioavailability advantage - Already have excellent oral absorption (80-100%)
• No half-life benefit - Injectable versions don't extend duration of action
• Added complications - Injection site reactions, sterility concerns, increased cost
• Research disconnect - All clinical data uses oral administration

Bottom line: Anyone telling you to inject SARMs either doesn't understand pharmacology or is selling you something. The entire point of SARMs was to avoid injections. Additionally, there are people that will say "just inject test bro" as if this doesn't completely defeat the purpose of doing SARMs in the first place. Testosterone ages you, gives you androgenic side effects, forces you to deal with aromatisation into DHT/E (which you then have to combat as well), forces you to inject, fucks with your fertility, and essentially locks you into a lifelong contract of injections. Anyone who has done T will tell you that they do not advise you to stop after you start. If you are one of the people who say "just do test bro" you are a retard. You may think test is better, in a lot of cases the efficacy probably is, but it does not come without it's drawbacks, and there are clear reasons why someone would choose to do a SARM over injectable T. There is nuance to these decisions.

​

​

Part 3: Peptides​

Peptides That Require Injection (Most of Them)​

Growth Hormone (GH)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Gastric acid and digestive enzymes completely destroy it; molecular weight (22 kDa) prevents absorption
• Route: Subcutaneous or intramuscular only

IGF-1

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Same as GH—complete digestive destruction
• Route: Injection only

Ipamorelin

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Complete degradation before reaching systemic circulation
• Route: Subcutaneous

CJC-1295

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: 30 amino acid structure makes oral administration completely ineffective
• Route: Subcutaneous

TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Route: Injection for systemic availability

Peptides are amino acid chains susceptible to protease degradation in the GI tract. Their large molecular size prevents passive absorption through intestinal membranes, and stomach acid destroys peptide bonds.

The Exceptions: Peptides Where Nasal/Topical Actually Work​

Melanotan II (MT2)

• Nasal bioavailability: Viable and effective
• Why nasal works: Nasal mucosa allows adequate absorption despite being destroyed orally
• Injectable bioavailability: Higher, but nasal is sufficient for desired effects

Why many prefer nasal MT2:

• Provides adequate bioavailability for tanning
• Avoids injection anxiety and technique requirements
• Prevents injection site hyperpigmentation (dark spots where you inject)
• More convenient for daily use
• Still allows dose adjustment by number of sprays

The reality is that many users achieve identical tanning results with nasal MT2. If it works for your goals, nasal is objectively better for you. Bioavailability percentages don't matter if you get the result you want. I see a lot of "just inject bro" when people talk about nasal MT2. Again, you're a fucking retard. It is worth actually trying to find a nasal version of MT2 instead of just settling for subq because it's easier.

PT-141

• Original formulation: Nasal spray for sexual dysfunction
• Key point: Nasal route demonstrated sufficient bioavailability for CNS effects

Oxytocin

• Nasal bioavailability: Effective for CNS effects
• Why nasal works: Bypasses blood-brain barrier issues
• Route preference: Nasal is standard

Desmopressin

• Nasal bioavailability: 10-20% (sufficient for therapeutic effect)
• Status: FDA-approved nasal formulation
• Verdict: Nasal is proven and preferred

GHK-Cu (Copper Peptide)
For skin/cosmetic purposes:

• Route: Topical
• Why topical is better: Delivers compound directly to target tissue
• Effectiveness: Highly effective for skin healing, collagen synthesis, and anti-aging
• Verdict: Injecting GHK-Cu for skin benefits is wasteful

For systemic anti-aging/healing:

• Route: Injectable
• Why injection is necessary: Topical won't achieve therapeutic blood levels
• Oral bioavailability: 0% (peptide bond degradation)
• Verdict: Injection required for systemic effects

"Better" is entirely context-dependent. Same compound, different optimal route based on your goal.

BPC-157

• Systemic effects: Require subcutaneous injection
• Topical application: Some evidence for localised healing (less studied)
• Oral for gut healing: Claims exist but oral bioavailability for systemic effects is negligible
• Verdict: Injection for systemic benefits, topical potentially for localised injury

Nasal Administration Summary​

Advantages:

• Avoids first-pass metabolism
• Rapid absorption through nasal mucosa
• Potential direct CNS delivery
• Non-invasive
• Self-administration friendly
• Avoids injection site complications (including hyperpigmentation with MT2)

Limitations:

• Generally lower bioavailability than injection (but often sufficient)
• Requires proper technique and spray formulation
• Not suitable for all peptides
• May cause nasal irritation with frequent use
• Less precise dosing control

​

​

Part 4: Practical Considerations​

Real-World Factors​

Oral dosing is easier to maintain consistently. Injection anxiety, injection site rotation requirements, and technique errors reduce the real-world effectiveness of injectable protocols. A compound you actually take consistently at 80% bioavailability beats a compound you skip doses of at 100% bioavailability.
Short-acting compounds benefit from oral admin.

​

An Example: The MT2 Decision​

This perfectly illustrates the nuance:
Injectable MT2:

• Precise dosing (start at 100-250 mcg)
• Can carefully titrate to minimise nausea
• Higher bioavailability
• BUT: Requires reconstitution, sterile technique, proper storage
• Risk of injection site hyperpigmentation

Nasal MT2

• Adequate bioavailability for tanning
• More convenient for daily use
• No injection site dark spots
• No needle anxiety
• Adjustable by number of sprays
• BUT: Less precise, potential nasal irritation

Many users achieve identical results with nasal. If that's you, nasal is objectively superior despite "lower bioavailability."

Risk-Benefit Analysis​

Injectable risks:

• Injection site infections
• Nerve damage
• Scarring and lipohypertrophy
• Contamination risks
• Looking like a heroin addict
• Reconstituting / storing solutions
• Injection site hyperpigmentation (MT2, certain steroids)

Oral risks:

• Hepatotoxicity (predictable and monitorable)
  • While oral alkylated steroids stress the liver, this is predictable, dose-dependent, and monitorable with bloodwork. Injection complications can include abscesses requiring surgical drainage, permanent nerve damage, and embolic events from oil-based solutions. Which is "safer"? Depends on the individual and the compound. These risks must be weighed against bioavailability gains, which for many compounds are minimal or nonexistent.

​

​

​

Part 5: Conclusions and Recommendations​

Decision Framework​

Choose Injectable When:

• Non-alkylated steroids (testosterone, nandrolone, trenbolone)
• Peptides without stable oral/nasal formulations (GH, IGF-1, most peptides)
• Long-acting protocols are desired (esterified compounds)
• The compound has poor oral bioavailability (<30%) and no viable other route
• Precise dosing is critical

Choose Oral When:

• Alkylated steroids (Anavar, Dianabol, Anadrol, Winstrol)
• ALL SARMs (they're designed for it)
• Rapid titration is needed
• Injection site complications have occurred
• Compliance concerns exist
• You want flexibility in dosing

Choose Nasal When:

• Peptides with proven nasal formulations (MT2, PT-141, oxytocin, desmopressin)
• CNS-targeted effects are desired
• You achieve desired results with nasal (like MT2 for tanning)
• You want to avoid injection site hyperpigmentation
• Convenience and compliance are priorities
• Injection anxiety

Choose Topical When:

• Localised effects are the goal (GHK-Cu for skin, potentially BPC-157 for injuries)
• Delivering compound directly to target tissue (skin, specific injury site)
• Systemic absorption is not required for your purpose

Final Thoughts​

The blanket statement that "injectable is always better" is pharmacologically naive and practically ignorant. Modern pharmaceutical chemistry has produced compounds specifically optimised for non-injectable routes.

SARMs exist precisely because scientists wanted oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Oral steroids are 17-alpha-alkylated specifically to make them orally bioavailable. MT2 works nasally. GHK-Cu works topically for skin.

The goal of this guide was to put it out there that, just because something isn't an injectable, doesn't mean it is useless. And just because someone is choosing a non-injectable, doesn't mean they're retarded. In fact, it is most likely YOU, that is the retard.

I haven't even discussed things like minoxidil, finasteride or RU58841 in this, when all of those are proven to work in non-injectable formats, and sometimes in both oral and topical formats. There is no one best way to do everything. Discounting the advantages of non-injectables is just genuinely more retarded than I can put into words.

Keep in mind, the dudes who are telling you to inject are likely under the age of 18 and have never even looked at an insulin needle.

Thanks.

Read everything thank you

 

[gigacumster3000]

i feel your pain on the whole "just inject bro" mentality man, it gets old fast. like you said, different delivery methods make sense for different compounds

 

[IBlameSub3]

(Thanks to @SlayerJonas for reinstating thread. All love, boyo)

Introduction​

There are too many dumbfucks on this forum who have likely never injected anything claiming that injection is always superior for everything.
MT2? "Just inject bro, nasal is cope." SARMs? "Useless bro, just inject test."

The reality is that oral, nasal, and topical formulations exist for legitimate pharmacological reasons. They're not always better, and they don't always work the same way, but they absolutely have their place.

This guide will debunk the "oral/topical/nasal is cope" myth once and for all so I never have to read that stupid shit again. If you are one of these dudes who just says "inject bro" on every single thread about an oral/topical, kill yourself right now today. Or read this and consider not spamming that everywhere because you look like a retard to anyone who knows anything about pharmacology.

The Core Issue​

The "injectable is always better" belief stems from legitimate concerns about first-pass metabolism and bioavailability. However, this perspective ignores:

• Compound-specific pharmacokinetics
• Practical considerations and compliance
• Safety profiles
• The fact that many compounds are specifically designed for optimal performance via non-injectable routes

In other words: no, don't "just inject bro."

​

​

Part 1: Anabolic Steroids​

When Oral Is Optimal (Or Even Superior)​

Anavar (Oxandrolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~97%
• Why oral works: 17-alpha-alkylation protects against first-pass metabolism
• Injectable advantage: None. You're just adding injection site complications for zero benefit
• Verdict: Oral is objectively better

Dianabol (Methandrostenolone)

• Oral bioavailability: 50-90%
• Why oral works: Rapid onset and short half-life make oral dosing ideal for quick titration
• Key benefit: Easy to cease if side effects occur
• Verdict: Oral is the designed and preferred route

Winstrol (Stanozolol)

• Oral bioavailability: ~30-40%
• Why oral is preferred: Injectable version causes painful injection site reactions
• Trade-off consideration: Lower bioavailability is worth avoiding the pain
• Verdict: Most users prefer oral despite lower bioavailability

The 17-Alpha-Alkylation Trade-off: Yes, it increases hepatotoxicity. That's the intentional trade-off for oral bioavailability. Hepatic stress in exchange for not needing injections. Injectable versions of these compounds completely defeat this design purpose.

When Injectable Is Actually Superior​

Testosterone

• Oral bioavailability: <7% (essentially worthless)
• Injectable bioavailability: ~100%
• Why injection is necessary: Rapid hepatic metabolism destroys oral testosterone
• Verdict: Injectable is mandatory

Nandrolone Decanoate (Deca)

• Why injection works: Long ester provides stable blood levels with weekly/biweekly injections
• Oral alternative: None exists
• Verdict: Injectable is the only option

Trenbolone

• Oral bioavailability: 0% (complete first-pass destruction)
• Why injection is necessary: Molecular structure requires it
• Verdict: Injectable is the only viable route

Key Takeaway: These compounds lack the structural modifications necessary for oral bioavailability. Their chemistry necessitates injection, unlike the alkylated steroids above.

​

​

Part 2: SARMs​

The Truth About SARMs​

Critical fact: SARMs were specifically developed as oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Converting them to injectables contradicts their entire design purpose.
Ostarine (MK-2866)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Specifically engineered for oral administration
• Half-life: 24 hours with excellent absorption
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Ligandrol (LGD-4033)

• Oral bioavailability: Near 100%
• Key feature: Resists first-pass metabolism without hepatotoxic alkylation
• Injectable advantage: Zero

RAD-140 (Testolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Optimised for oral use
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Don't Inject SARMs​

• No bioavailability advantage - Already have excellent oral absorption (80-100%)
• No half-life benefit - Injectable versions don't extend duration of action
• Added complications - Injection site reactions, sterility concerns, increased cost
• Research disconnect - All clinical data uses oral administration

Bottom line: Anyone telling you to inject SARMs either doesn't understand pharmacology or is selling you something. The entire point of SARMs was to avoid injections. Additionally, there are people that will say "just inject test bro" as if this doesn't completely defeat the purpose of doing SARMs in the first place. Testosterone ages you, gives you androgenic side effects, forces you to deal with aromatisation into DHT/E (which you then have to combat as well), forces you to inject, fucks with your fertility, and essentially locks you into a lifelong contract of injections. Anyone who has done T will tell you that they do not advise you to stop after you start. If you are one of the people who say "just do test bro" you are a retard. You may think test is better, in a lot of cases the efficacy probably is, but it does not come without it's drawbacks, and there are clear reasons why someone would choose to do a SARM over injectable T. There is nuance to these decisions.

​

​

Part 3: Peptides​

Peptides That Require Injection (Most of Them)​

Growth Hormone (GH)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Gastric acid and digestive enzymes completely destroy it; molecular weight (22 kDa) prevents absorption
• Route: Subcutaneous or intramuscular only

IGF-1

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Same as GH—complete digestive destruction
• Route: Injection only

Ipamorelin

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Complete degradation before reaching systemic circulation
• Route: Subcutaneous

CJC-1295

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: 30 amino acid structure makes oral administration completely ineffective
• Route: Subcutaneous

TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Route: Injection for systemic availability

Peptides are amino acid chains susceptible to protease degradation in the GI tract. Their large molecular size prevents passive absorption through intestinal membranes, and stomach acid destroys peptide bonds.

The Exceptions: Peptides Where Nasal/Topical Actually Work​

Melanotan II (MT2)

• Nasal bioavailability: Viable and effective
• Why nasal works: Nasal mucosa allows adequate absorption despite being destroyed orally
• Injectable bioavailability: Higher, but nasal is sufficient for desired effects

Why many prefer nasal MT2:

• Provides adequate bioavailability for tanning
• Avoids injection anxiety and technique requirements
• Prevents injection site hyperpigmentation (dark spots where you inject)
• More convenient for daily use
• Still allows dose adjustment by number of sprays

The reality is that many users achieve identical tanning results with nasal MT2. If it works for your goals, nasal is objectively better for you. Bioavailability percentages don't matter if you get the result you want. I see a lot of "just inject bro" when people talk about nasal MT2. Again, you're a fucking retard. It is worth actually trying to find a nasal version of MT2 instead of just settling for subq because it's easier.

PT-141

• Original formulation: Nasal spray for sexual dysfunction
• Key point: Nasal route demonstrated sufficient bioavailability for CNS effects

Oxytocin

• Nasal bioavailability: Effective for CNS effects
• Why nasal works: Bypasses blood-brain barrier issues
• Route preference: Nasal is standard

Desmopressin

• Nasal bioavailability: 10-20% (sufficient for therapeutic effect)
• Status: FDA-approved nasal formulation
• Verdict: Nasal is proven and preferred

GHK-Cu (Copper Peptide)
For skin/cosmetic purposes:

• Route: Topical
• Why topical is better: Delivers compound directly to target tissue
• Effectiveness: Highly effective for skin healing, collagen synthesis, and anti-aging
• Verdict: Injecting GHK-Cu for skin benefits is wasteful

For systemic anti-aging/healing:

• Route: Injectable
• Why injection is necessary: Topical won't achieve therapeutic blood levels
• Oral bioavailability: 0% (peptide bond degradation)
• Verdict: Injection required for systemic effects

"Better" is entirely context-dependent. Same compound, different optimal route based on your goal.

BPC-157

• Systemic effects: Require subcutaneous injection
• Topical application: Some evidence for localised healing (less studied)
• Oral for gut healing: Claims exist but oral bioavailability for systemic effects is negligible
• Verdict: Injection for systemic benefits, topical potentially for localised injury

Nasal Administration Summary​

Advantages:

• Avoids first-pass metabolism
• Rapid absorption through nasal mucosa
• Potential direct CNS delivery
• Non-invasive
• Self-administration friendly
• Avoids injection site complications (including hyperpigmentation with MT2)

Limitations:

• Generally lower bioavailability than injection (but often sufficient)
• Requires proper technique and spray formulation
• Not suitable for all peptides
• May cause nasal irritation with frequent use
• Less precise dosing control

​

​

Part 4: Practical Considerations​

Real-World Factors​

Oral dosing is easier to maintain consistently. Injection anxiety, injection site rotation requirements, and technique errors reduce the real-world effectiveness of injectable protocols. A compound you actually take consistently at 80% bioavailability beats a compound you skip doses of at 100% bioavailability.
Short-acting compounds benefit from oral admin.

​

An Example: The MT2 Decision​

This perfectly illustrates the nuance:
Injectable MT2:

• Precise dosing (start at 100-250 mcg)
• Can carefully titrate to minimise nausea
• Higher bioavailability
• BUT: Requires reconstitution, sterile technique, proper storage
• Risk of injection site hyperpigmentation

Nasal MT2

• Adequate bioavailability for tanning
• More convenient for daily use
• No injection site dark spots
• No needle anxiety
• Adjustable by number of sprays
• BUT: Less precise, potential nasal irritation

Many users achieve identical results with nasal. If that's you, nasal is objectively superior despite "lower bioavailability."

Risk-Benefit Analysis​

Injectable risks:

• Injection site infections
• Nerve damage
• Scarring and lipohypertrophy
• Contamination risks
• Looking like a heroin addict
• Reconstituting / storing solutions
• Injection site hyperpigmentation (MT2, certain steroids)

Oral risks:

• Hepatotoxicity (predictable and monitorable)
  • While oral alkylated steroids stress the liver, this is predictable, dose-dependent, and monitorable with bloodwork. Injection complications can include abscesses requiring surgical drainage, permanent nerve damage, and embolic events from oil-based solutions. Which is "safer"? Depends on the individual and the compound. These risks must be weighed against bioavailability gains, which for many compounds are minimal or nonexistent.

​

​

​

Part 5: Conclusions and Recommendations​

Decision Framework​

Choose Injectable When:

• Non-alkylated steroids (testosterone, nandrolone, trenbolone)
• Peptides without stable oral/nasal formulations (GH, IGF-1, most peptides)
• Long-acting protocols are desired (esterified compounds)
• The compound has poor oral bioavailability (<30%) and no viable other route
• Precise dosing is critical

Choose Oral When:

• Alkylated steroids (Anavar, Dianabol, Anadrol, Winstrol)
• ALL SARMs (they're designed for it)
• Rapid titration is needed
• Injection site complications have occurred
• Compliance concerns exist
• You want flexibility in dosing

Choose Nasal When:

• Peptides with proven nasal formulations (MT2, PT-141, oxytocin, desmopressin)
• CNS-targeted effects are desired
• You achieve desired results with nasal (like MT2 for tanning)
• You want to avoid injection site hyperpigmentation
• Convenience and compliance are priorities
• Injection anxiety

Choose Topical When:

• Localised effects are the goal (GHK-Cu for skin, potentially BPC-157 for injuries)
• Delivering compound directly to target tissue (skin, specific injury site)
• Systemic absorption is not required for your purpose

Final Thoughts​

The blanket statement that "injectable is always better" is pharmacologically naive and practically ignorant. Modern pharmaceutical chemistry has produced compounds specifically optimised for non-injectable routes.

SARMs exist precisely because scientists wanted oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Oral steroids are 17-alpha-alkylated specifically to make them orally bioavailable. MT2 works nasally. GHK-Cu works topically for skin.

The goal of this guide was to put it out there that, just because something isn't an injectable, doesn't mean it is useless. And just because someone is choosing a non-injectable, doesn't mean they're retarded. In fact, it is most likely YOU, that is the retard.

I haven't even discussed things like minoxidil, finasteride or RU58841 in this, when all of those are proven to work in non-injectable formats, and sometimes in both oral and topical formats. There is no one best way to do everything. Discounting the advantages of non-injectables is just genuinely more retarded than I can put into words.

Keep in mind, the dudes who are telling you to inject are likely under the age of 18 and have never even looked at an insulin needle.

Thanks.

Good post but why do you compare oral steroide which are literaly made for being uptaken oral to normal injectable roids which are not made for oral injestion and then say that the orals are superior just because theyre available oral, theres literaly methyl-testosteron, methyl-trenbolone which can also be taken up orally but are just very uncommon to use

 

[MogsMost]

Good post but why do you compare oral steroide which are literaly made for being uptaken oral to normal injectable roids which are not made for oral injestion and then say that the orals are superior just because theyre available oral, theres literaly methyl-testosteron, methyl-trenbolone which can also be taken up orally but are just very uncommon to use

The argument I am making is that people disregard all orals as useless.

 

[alphamale82]

most water fucking thread i've ever actually read
its funny how retards will read shit that states the obvious and call it a good thread just because its formatted nicely
no one argues that you need to inject everything, its about getting the most bioavailability you can from a compound
no one tells you to inject steroids commonly taken as orals no one tells you to inject oxytocin, etc
going against what is standard will yield you less results, but you already stated that, so literally what is the point of this dogshit thread? to tell you you'll get less results if you stray from whats standard? holy fucking tsunami

the state of you retards

 

[MogsMost]

most water fucking thread i've ever actually read
its funny how retards will read shit that states the obvious and call it a good thread just because its formatted nicely
no one argues that you need to inject everything, its about getting the most bioavailability you can from a compound
no one tells you to inject steroids commonly taken as orals no one tells you to inject oxytocin, etc
going against what is standard will yield you less results, but you already stated that, so literally what is the point of this dogshit thread? to tell you you'll get less results if you stray from whats standard? holy fucking tsunami

the state of you retards

Thank you for this valuable insight.

 

[alphamale82]

Thank you for this valuable insight.

View attachment 4261100

as if my join date has anything to do with my knowledge
the fact you replied with just this shows me youre a retard

but to be fair, your thread isnt bad or anything, you do need to hold these niggas dicks when they pee

 

[MogsMost]

as if my join date has anything to do with my knowledge
the fact you replied with just this shows me youre a retard

but to be fair, your thread isnt bad or anything, you do need to hold these niggas dicks when they pee

Yeah it's mostly targeted at exactly who you're suggesting it is targeted at.

You have the knowledge, not everyone else does.

People just hop on certain bandwagons and it turns into an echochamber of "just inject"

 

[alphamale82]

Yeah it's mostly targeted at exactly who you're suggesting it is targeted at.

You have the knowledge, not everyone else does.

People just hop on certain bandwagons and it turns into an echochamber of "just inject"

based lad

 

[Use1ess]

what about semax and selank? I've injected both but I've heard that it can be better to use a nasal inhaler because of the blood brain barrier could someone explain to me in a bit more detail and if I should even bother changing my current method.

 

[NorwoodVictim]

Nasal spray MT-2 is simply not viable compared to injectable when you compare cost and efficiency. If you cannot pin then it can be used however, injectable is far more efficient. There are no studies i can find on Nasal MT-2 so no point wasting money on a method of delivery that isnt as good or proven besides anecdotal evidence. Injecting everything is retarded but MT-2 is worth it.

 

[icebl00d._.03]

(Thanks to @SlayerJonas for reinstating thread. All love, boyo)

Introduction​

There are too many dumbfucks on this forum who have likely never injected anything claiming that injection is always superior for everything.
MT2? "Just inject bro, nasal is cope." SARMs? "Useless bro, just inject test."

The reality is that oral, nasal, and topical formulations exist for legitimate pharmacological reasons. They're not always better, and they don't always work the same way, but they absolutely have their place.

This guide will debunk the "oral/topical/nasal is cope" myth once and for all so I never have to read that stupid shit again. If you are one of these dudes who just says "inject bro" on every single thread about an oral/topical, kill yourself right now today. Or read this and consider not spamming that everywhere because you look like a retard to anyone who knows anything about pharmacology.

The Core Issue​

The "injectable is always better" belief stems from legitimate concerns about first-pass metabolism and bioavailability. However, this perspective ignores:

• Compound-specific pharmacokinetics
• Practical considerations and compliance
• Safety profiles
• The fact that many compounds are specifically designed for optimal performance via non-injectable routes

In other words: no, don't "just inject bro."

​

​

Part 1: Anabolic Steroids​

When Oral Is Optimal (Or Even Superior)​

Anavar (Oxandrolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~97%
• Why oral works: 17-alpha-alkylation protects against first-pass metabolism
• Injectable advantage: None. You're just adding injection site complications for zero benefit
• Verdict: Oral is objectively better

Dianabol (Methandrostenolone)

• Oral bioavailability: 50-90%
• Why oral works: Rapid onset and short half-life make oral dosing ideal for quick titration
• Key benefit: Easy to cease if side effects occur
• Verdict: Oral is the designed and preferred route

Winstrol (Stanozolol)

• Oral bioavailability: ~30-40%
• Why oral is preferred: Injectable version causes painful injection site reactions
• Trade-off consideration: Lower bioavailability is worth avoiding the pain
• Verdict: Most users prefer oral despite lower bioavailability

The 17-Alpha-Alkylation Trade-off: Yes, it increases hepatotoxicity. That's the intentional trade-off for oral bioavailability. Hepatic stress in exchange for not needing injections. Injectable versions of these compounds completely defeat this design purpose.

When Injectable Is Actually Superior​

Testosterone

• Oral bioavailability: <7% (essentially worthless)
• Injectable bioavailability: ~100%
• Why injection is necessary: Rapid hepatic metabolism destroys oral testosterone
• Verdict: Injectable is mandatory

Nandrolone Decanoate (Deca)

• Why injection works: Long ester provides stable blood levels with weekly/biweekly injections
• Oral alternative: None exists
• Verdict: Injectable is the only option

Trenbolone

• Oral bioavailability: 0% (complete first-pass destruction)
• Why injection is necessary: Molecular structure requires it
• Verdict: Injectable is the only viable route

Key Takeaway: These compounds lack the structural modifications necessary for oral bioavailability. Their chemistry necessitates injection, unlike the alkylated steroids above.

​

​

Part 2: SARMs​

The Truth About SARMs​

Critical fact: SARMs were specifically developed as oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Converting them to injectables contradicts their entire design purpose.
Ostarine (MK-2866)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Specifically engineered for oral administration
• Half-life: 24 hours with excellent absorption
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Ligandrol (LGD-4033)

• Oral bioavailability: Near 100%
• Key feature: Resists first-pass metabolism without hepatotoxic alkylation
• Injectable advantage: Zero

RAD-140 (Testolone)

• Oral bioavailability: ~90%
• Design: Optimised for oral use
• Injectable advantage: Zero

Don't Inject SARMs​

• No bioavailability advantage - Already have excellent oral absorption (80-100%)
• No half-life benefit - Injectable versions don't extend duration of action
• Added complications - Injection site reactions, sterility concerns, increased cost
• Research disconnect - All clinical data uses oral administration

Bottom line: Anyone telling you to inject SARMs either doesn't understand pharmacology or is selling you something. The entire point of SARMs was to avoid injections. Additionally, there are people that will say "just inject test bro" as if this doesn't completely defeat the purpose of doing SARMs in the first place. Testosterone ages you, gives you androgenic side effects, forces you to deal with aromatisation into DHT/E (which you then have to combat as well), forces you to inject, fucks with your fertility, and essentially locks you into a lifelong contract of injections. Anyone who has done T will tell you that they do not advise you to stop after you start. If you are one of the people who say "just do test bro" you are a retard. You may think test is better, in a lot of cases the efficacy probably is, but it does not come without it's drawbacks, and there are clear reasons why someone would choose to do a SARM over injectable T. There is nuance to these decisions.

​

​

Part 3: Peptides​

Peptides That Require Injection (Most of Them)​

Growth Hormone (GH)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Gastric acid and digestive enzymes completely destroy it; molecular weight (22 kDa) prevents absorption
• Route: Subcutaneous or intramuscular only

IGF-1

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Same as GH—complete digestive destruction
• Route: Injection only

Ipamorelin

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: Complete degradation before reaching systemic circulation
• Route: Subcutaneous

CJC-1295

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Why injection is mandatory: 30 amino acid structure makes oral administration completely ineffective
• Route: Subcutaneous

TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4)

• Oral bioavailability: 0%
• Route: Injection for systemic availability

Peptides are amino acid chains susceptible to protease degradation in the GI tract. Their large molecular size prevents passive absorption through intestinal membranes, and stomach acid destroys peptide bonds.

The Exceptions: Peptides Where Nasal/Topical Actually Work​

Melanotan II (MT2)

• Nasal bioavailability: Viable and effective
• Why nasal works: Nasal mucosa allows adequate absorption despite being destroyed orally
• Injectable bioavailability: Higher, but nasal is sufficient for desired effects

Why many prefer nasal MT2:

• Provides adequate bioavailability for tanning
• Avoids injection anxiety and technique requirements
• Prevents injection site hyperpigmentation (dark spots where you inject)
• More convenient for daily use
• Still allows dose adjustment by number of sprays

The reality is that many users achieve identical tanning results with nasal MT2. If it works for your goals, nasal is objectively better for you. Bioavailability percentages don't matter if you get the result you want. I see a lot of "just inject bro" when people talk about nasal MT2. Again, you're a fucking retard. It is worth actually trying to find a nasal version of MT2 instead of just settling for subq because it's easier.

PT-141

• Original formulation: Nasal spray for sexual dysfunction
• Key point: Nasal route demonstrated sufficient bioavailability for CNS effects

Oxytocin

• Nasal bioavailability: Effective for CNS effects
• Why nasal works: Bypasses blood-brain barrier issues
• Route preference: Nasal is standard

Desmopressin

• Nasal bioavailability: 10-20% (sufficient for therapeutic effect)
• Status: FDA-approved nasal formulation
• Verdict: Nasal is proven and preferred

GHK-Cu (Copper Peptide)
For skin/cosmetic purposes:

• Route: Topical
• Why topical is better: Delivers compound directly to target tissue
• Effectiveness: Highly effective for skin healing, collagen synthesis, and anti-aging
• Verdict: Injecting GHK-Cu for skin benefits is wasteful

For systemic anti-aging/healing:

• Route: Injectable
• Why injection is necessary: Topical won't achieve therapeutic blood levels
• Oral bioavailability: 0% (peptide bond degradation)
• Verdict: Injection required for systemic effects

"Better" is entirely context-dependent. Same compound, different optimal route based on your goal.

BPC-157

• Systemic effects: Require subcutaneous injection
• Topical application: Some evidence for localised healing (less studied)
• Oral for gut healing: Claims exist but oral bioavailability for systemic effects is negligible
• Verdict: Injection for systemic benefits, topical potentially for localised injury

Nasal Administration Summary​

Advantages:

• Avoids first-pass metabolism
• Rapid absorption through nasal mucosa
• Potential direct CNS delivery
• Non-invasive
• Self-administration friendly
• Avoids injection site complications (including hyperpigmentation with MT2)

Limitations:

• Generally lower bioavailability than injection (but often sufficient)
• Requires proper technique and spray formulation
• Not suitable for all peptides
• May cause nasal irritation with frequent use
• Less precise dosing control

​

​

Part 4: Practical Considerations​

Real-World Factors​

Oral dosing is easier to maintain consistently. Injection anxiety, injection site rotation requirements, and technique errors reduce the real-world effectiveness of injectable protocols. A compound you actually take consistently at 80% bioavailability beats a compound you skip doses of at 100% bioavailability.
Short-acting compounds benefit from oral admin.

​

An Example: The MT2 Decision​

This perfectly illustrates the nuance:
Injectable MT2:

• Precise dosing (start at 100-250 mcg)
• Can carefully titrate to minimise nausea
• Higher bioavailability
• BUT: Requires reconstitution, sterile technique, proper storage
• Risk of injection site hyperpigmentation

Nasal MT2

• Adequate bioavailability for tanning
• More convenient for daily use
• No injection site dark spots
• No needle anxiety
• Adjustable by number of sprays
• BUT: Less precise, potential nasal irritation

Many users achieve identical results with nasal. If that's you, nasal is objectively superior despite "lower bioavailability."

Risk-Benefit Analysis​

Injectable risks:

• Injection site infections
• Nerve damage
• Scarring and lipohypertrophy
• Contamination risks
• Looking like a heroin addict
• Reconstituting / storing solutions
• Injection site hyperpigmentation (MT2, certain steroids)

Oral risks:

• Hepatotoxicity (predictable and monitorable)
  • While oral alkylated steroids stress the liver, this is predictable, dose-dependent, and monitorable with bloodwork. Injection complications can include abscesses requiring surgical drainage, permanent nerve damage, and embolic events from oil-based solutions. Which is "safer"? Depends on the individual and the compound. These risks must be weighed against bioavailability gains, which for many compounds are minimal or nonexistent.

​

​

​

Part 5: Conclusions and Recommendations​

Decision Framework​

Choose Injectable When:

• Non-alkylated steroids (testosterone, nandrolone, trenbolone)
• Peptides without stable oral/nasal formulations (GH, IGF-1, most peptides)
• Long-acting protocols are desired (esterified compounds)
• The compound has poor oral bioavailability (<30%) and no viable other route
• Precise dosing is critical

Choose Oral When:

• Alkylated steroids (Anavar, Dianabol, Anadrol, Winstrol)
• ALL SARMs (they're designed for it)
• Rapid titration is needed
• Injection site complications have occurred
• Compliance concerns exist
• You want flexibility in dosing

Choose Nasal When:

• Peptides with proven nasal formulations (MT2, PT-141, oxytocin, desmopressin)
• CNS-targeted effects are desired
• You achieve desired results with nasal (like MT2 for tanning)
• You want to avoid injection site hyperpigmentation
• Convenience and compliance are priorities
• Injection anxiety

Choose Topical When:

• Localised effects are the goal (GHK-Cu for skin, potentially BPC-157 for injuries)
• Delivering compound directly to target tissue (skin, specific injury site)
• Systemic absorption is not required for your purpose

Final Thoughts​

The blanket statement that "injectable is always better" is pharmacologically naive and practically ignorant. Modern pharmaceutical chemistry has produced compounds specifically optimised for non-injectable routes.

SARMs exist precisely because scientists wanted oral alternatives to injectable steroids. Oral steroids are 17-alpha-alkylated specifically to make them orally bioavailable. MT2 works nasally. GHK-Cu works topically for skin.

The goal of this guide was to put it out there that, just because something isn't an injectable, doesn't mean it is useless. And just because someone is choosing a non-injectable, doesn't mean they're retarded. In fact, it is most likely YOU, that is the retard.

I haven't even discussed things like minoxidil, finasteride or RU58841 in this, when all of those are proven to work in non-injectable formats, and sometimes in both oral and topical formats. There is no one best way to do everything. Discounting the advantages of non-injectables is just genuinely more retarded than I can put into words.

Keep in mind, the dudes who are telling you to inject are likely under the age of 18 and have never even looked at an insulin needle.

Thanks.

Honestly, this whole thread seems pretty obvious to me, but I guess there are some retards who don’t know any of this

 

[MogsMost]

Nasal spray MT-2 is simply not viable compared to injectable when you compare cost and efficiency. If you cannot pin then it can be used however, injectable is far more efficient. There are no studies i can find on Nasal MT-2 so no point wasting money on a method of delivery that isnt as good or proven besides anecdotal evidence. Injecting everything is retarded but MT-2 is worth it.

Pretty much everyone who does MT2 does nasal, why inject? I can count at least 10 anecdotally that I know personally where MT2 has been highly efficacious.

 

[Plushie]

Pretty much everyone who does MT2 does nasal, why inject?

Cuz it costs about half as much? Pinning is not scary nor inconvinient after like the second injection, it takes literally 2 minutes. We all know people don't pin MT2 because they are scared of needles, plain and simple

 

[NorwoodVictim]

Pretty much everyone who does MT2 does nasal, why inject? I can count at least 10 anecdotally that I know personally where MT2 has been highly efficacious.

if you are willing to waste money because youre afraid if a tiny injection then okay. But if youre not a pussy spend that money on more injectable MT2 rather than spraying it up your nose at an eighth of the effectiveness per dose.

 

[MogsMost]

if you are willing to waste money because youre afraid if a tiny injection then okay. But if youre not a pussy spend that money on more injectable MT2 rather than spraying it up your nose at an eighth of the effectiveness per dose.

Benefits of nasal outweigh drawbacks

 

[Bajio]

should i inject mt2 or buy nasal because nasal is cheaper

 

[MogsMost]

should i inject mt2 or buy nasal because nasal is cheaper

If nasal is cheaper there's no reason to not get nasal.

Plus if worried about bioavailability (lol) just do more nasal. Ends up cheaper than pinning.