Bicept Injections?

[mdlifter]

Jumpin fuckin Christ. Just wanted to know if anyone else has had the unbarable pain for shooting up in a bicept or delt. I've administered a thousand shots before to the upper sections of both my right and left ass cheeks.
Had a fuckin brainstorm from hell and decided to try something new. The initial shot was no problem, neither was day two but by the time day three rolled around it hurt so bad I couldn't even wipe my ass. Although this was a fucked up post, i had to see if ther were others out there.

GDS

 

[fortlaud]

Dude unless you are just shooting something (? synthol) that causes localized water retention to temporarily make certain muscles look bigger, shooting into one particular muscle doesn't make that specific muscle bigger. Test, deca & pretty much anything else you'd shoot get distributed throughout the muscles of your whole bod from the origial injection site.

If this wasn't the case, there would be alot of guys walking around with gimungous, freakish ass cheeks ; )

All the best

 

[mdlifter]

Hey, Thanks for the feedback. May have just been a muscle or a nerve, had this stuff happen before. Wife's making fun of her "big bad muscle head that can't wipe his ass". What a way to start the 4th! Although I don't drink anymore, I hope those who can drink pound a few! -Peace. -GDS-

 

[riverrock]

Yes, you are the Insane One alright!!!!!

There is no extra benefit from spot injections. Just concentrate on using your Butt as a pin cushion because its as good (and usually way safer) than any other. Good luck Bro!

 

[Maxx Out]

Jumpin fuckin Christ. Just wanted to know if anyone else has had the unbarable pain for shooting up in a bicept or delt. I've administered a thousand shots before to the upper sections of both my right and left ass cheeks.
Had a fuckin brainstorm from hell and decided to try something new. The initial shot was no problem, neither was day two but by the time day three rolled around it hurt so bad I couldn't even wipe my ass. Although this was a fucked up post, i had to see if ther were others out there.

GDS

What did u inject?

 

[Tux]

I hit bi's no problem, just have to use painless gear, and I mean PAINLESS. Like EQ ,test E, deca, and I'll use the clear winny I made too, it DOES work for site growth as it has no ester. Plus, it's an extra injection site.

 

[krishna]

Do delts all the time. Have done bi's and tri's before with sustanon. The prop fucking killed....won't be doing that again.

 

[chefbone]

Hey, Thanks for the feedback. May have just been a muscle or a nerve, had this stuff happen before. Wife's making fun of her "big bad muscle head that can't wipe his ass". What a way to start the 4th! Although I don't drink anymore, I hope those who can drink pound a few! -Peace. -GDS-

Never hit bi's or tri's. Krish, you hit your tris, crazy fuck!!!! As for the beer drinkin', mdlifter, I wish I could pound a few for you but I QUIT DRINKIN' TODAY!!!!!! lol

 

[LVTitan]

i did bi's once, ONCE ! and my stupid ass decided to do both bi's on the same day, 1cc each of test250. i didnt know shit then, shot right in the middle of the muscle. not only did i have a big fucking bruise on each bicep, but i couldn't bend either arm for almost a week. i was fucking useless !!! it sucked big time.

 

[Tux]

Depends on the person, how long you've done it, and WHAT YOU USE! I use mostly totally painless gear that I make myself, EQ and Deca200, long-acting masteron, totally painless stuff with 2% BA max. I'll add in 1/2cc total of Crystal winny for 50mg, so I get 25mg of winny per bicep. Total mixture is 2.5cc's, I use a 27g, 1.25 inch pin. Insert it about 1 full inch in the peak, and put 1.25cc's into each bicep. Gets a little sore, but not bad at all, usually gone in a few days and i can still fully flex each muscle. 1cc or less, usually painless unless you're shaking alot and move the needle too much. Or use something crazy like sust, prop, winny, etc, that hurts like hell no matter where you shoot it

 

[Whiskey]

when using tren ed and test twice a week, gotta get creative. I'll hit the bi's, tri's, and lats if need be. I like to have help though for the lat inj.

Whiskey

 

[chefbone]

when using tren ed and test twice a week, gotta get creative. I'll hit the bi's, tri's, and lats if need be. I like to have help though for the lat inj.

Whiskey

Lat injections, good lord.

Not me, I like it in the ....
Let me start this over!!
Not me, I always poke myself in the ........
Dammit!!!!!

One more time
The glutes are the easiest and least frightening place to shoot for me. Quads are easy, but that's as far as I'll go. I did calf once, never again.
If someone comes on this thread and says I hit my traps all the time, I'll freak the fuck out!!!!

 

[concordsize]

i do bis once a week with no prob bro.

 

[DaPit26]

I'm running out of spots to inject my fuckin fina (ass is now one hard fuckin lump) delts are pretty sore, never tried lats since i'm too damn stocky and can't even scratch my back! thinking quads (which I'm sure hurt like a mofo) or biceps....not sure yet!!!

 

[Tux]

Unless your fina is oddly painful( most are pretty much painless) quads should be fine. I can hit 2-3 different spots each week in quads with a 29g .5in slin pin, 1cc of fina per shot, no probs, no pain. Much easier than biceps.

 

[Andy13]

Site injections DO NOT WORK via AR to cause localized growth. Ester, no ester, oil, water suspension- It does not matter.

Start sticking needles in muscles that aren't ideal for IM injections and you may wind up really hurting yourself.

Delts, quads, glutes ONLY.

 

[Tux]

Andy13, give me some proof. I've GOT proof, personal, medical, and professional, that site injections DO indeed work. So unless you've got a way to prove they don't work, which I know you don't, please shut up

 

[iamnikvanhelsing]

I injected BD Trinabol into my quad and couldn't walk properly for a week!! Quite funny actually cos after the first couple of days the pain went away but my leg still didnt work, I was walking like I had a wooden leg! Problem is that shit hurts like hell wherever you put it, delt, glute, quad. Ah well, no pain no gain!!

 

[Andy13]

Andy13, give me some proof. I've GOT proof, personal, medical, and professional, that site injections DO indeed work. So unless you've got a way to prove they don't work, which I know you don't, please shut up

Show me the proof. I am not interested in hearing testimony. I want medline ref's.

 

[Tux]

Try a few of these lol. Most prove that IGF-1 and GH DO indeed have increased localized effects on the tissues, muscles included, where they are injected. And as we all should know, most steroids, like nandrolone, trenbolone, etc, increase IGF-1 levels. I hate to prove you wrong bro, but it's right there in black and white. Sure, it doesn't work very well for most people, sure it CAN screw you up if you do it like Greg Valentino, but does localized injection work via IGF-1, GH, fascia-stretching, etc? Hell yes, and the medical evidence proves it. Deny it now.



Regulation and action of insulin-like growth factors at the cellular level

L S Phillips, J B Harp, S Goldstein, C I Pao

Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , 49(3):451-458 1990


Present understanding of IGF-1 as a growth factor mediating integration of nutritional-hormonal interactions indicates that IGF-1 acts in both an endocrine mode on distant targets and an autocrine-paracrine mode on local targets. In the liver, the combined presence of GH, insulin, and critical metabolic fuels such as essential amino acids results in increased levels of IGF-1 messenger RNA, increased production of a high-MW IGF-1 precursor, and increased release of IGF-1 into the circulation, permitting action on distant target tissues bearing specific receptors for IGF-1. The net effect is distant amplification of anabolic hormone action via IGF-1 acting in an endocrine mode. In extrahepatic tissues, both 'general' anabolic hormones (insulin and GH) as well as 'specific' hormones (e.g. gonadotropins) acting on a wide variety of targets (including fibroblasts and chondrocytes as well as granulosa and Leydig cells) promote both local secretion of IGF-1 and an increase in IGF-1 receptors. Local actions of IGF-1 then result in a secondary increase in both hormone receptors and hormone responses. The net effect is local amplification of hormone action via IGF-1 acting as a growth factor in an autocrine-paracrine mode.

Other References:


1. Hertoghe T. Growth hormone therapy in ageing adults 4th Annual meeting of the American Academy of anti-aging Medicine, Las Vegas December 1996.

2. Bouillanne O, Rainfray M, Tissandier O et al. Growth hormone in elderly people: an age-delaying drug? Fundan Clin Pharmacol 1996 10 (5) 416-30.

3. Merimee TJ. Growth hormone secretion and action. Endocrinology DeGroot et al (eds) New York, NY 1979.

4. Thoren M, Hilding M, Baxter RR et al. Serum insulin like growth factor 1(IGF1), IGF binding protein -1 and -3 and the acid labile subunit as serum markers of body composition during growth hormone therapy in adults with GH deficiency. J Clin Endorinol Metabol 1997; 82 (1): 223-8.

5. Johansson JO , Landin K, Johannsson G et al. Long term treatment with growth hormone decreases plasminogen acitivator and tissue plasminogen activator in growth hormone deficient adults. Thromb Haemost 1996; 76 (3): 422-8.

6. Boonen S, Lesaffre E, Aerssens J. Deficiency of the growth hormone insulin like growth factor 1 axis potentially involved in age related abnormalities in body composition. Gerontology 1996; 42 (6): 330-8.

7. Bengt-Ake Bengtsson. Effects of Growth Hormone Deficiency 4th Annual meeting of the American Academy of anti-aging Medicine, Las Vegas December 1996.

8. Jansen YJ, Frolich M, Roelfsema F. A low starting dose of genotropin in growth hormone deficient adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997; 82 (1): 129-35.

9. Terry CL. Human growth hormone replacement therapy in adults 4th Annual meeting of the American Academy of anti-aging Medicine, Las Vegas December 1996.

10. Klatz R, MD Grow Young with HGH Harper Collins New York, NY 1997.


11. Smith R. A new receptor involved in the control of growth hormone secretion 4th annual meeting American academy of anti-aging medicine Las Vegas 1996.

12. Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Bush JA, et al. J.Appl.Physiol.85(4) 1544-1555,1998.

13. Daughaday WH,ed. Endocrine Control of Growth, New York:Elsevier,1981.


14. Tillmann V, Patel L, Gill MS, et al. Clin Endocrinol.53(3):329-336,2000.


15. Philips LS. Metabolism, 34:765-770,1985


16. Carroll PV, Christ ER, Umpleby AM, et al. Diabetes, 49(5):789-96,2000.


17. Zachwieja JJ, Yarasheski KE. Phys Ther. 79(1):76-82,1999.


18. Parkhouse WS, Coupland DC, Li C, Vanderhoek KJ. Mech Aging Dev.
77;113(2):75-83,2000.


19. Rasmussen BB, Tipton KD, Miller SL, et al. J.Appl.Physiol. 88:386-392,2000.


20. Jenkins PJ. Clin Endocrin. 50:683-689,1999.


21. Bamman MM, et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 280:E383-E390, 2001.


22. Nindl BC, et al. J Appl Physiol. 90:1319-1326, 2001.

 

[Andy13]

Try a few of these lol. Most prove that IGF-1 and GH DO indeed have increased localized effects on the tissues, muscles included, where they are injected. And as we all should know, most steroids, like nandrolone, trenbolone, etc, increase IGF-1 levels. I hate to prove you wrong bro, but it's right there in black and white. Sure, it doesn't work very well for most people, sure it CAN screw you up if you do it like Greg Valentino, but does localized injection work via IGF-1, GH, fascia-stretching, etc? Hell yes, and the medical evidence proves it. Deny it now.

You don't get it. You are arguing against non-issues. For the sake of discussion, we will assume GH and IGF-1 do indeed cause localized growth. However, just because AAS cause an increase in IGF-1 and GH does NOT imply that AAS, administered locally, will cause local growth. IGF-1 and GH are water-soluble peptide molecules, not steroids. A local effect from administering these peptides does NOT imply that the same effect can be caused by locally injecting steroids. Can you see the flaw in your argument?

 

[Tux]

No, actually, they were separate arguments. IGF-1 and GH administered locally WILL cause localized growth, hence your statement that site injections don't work is wrong. Localized injections of oil-based gear like test enth, etc, will stretch the fascia over time and allow for more muscle growth, again proving your statement wrong. Finally, localized injections of test suspension have been proven to have higher affinity for AR receptors in the muscle injected into, simply b/c they are closer, once AGAIN disproving your statement. Got anything else to try, or will you yield?

 

[Andy13]

No, actually, they were separate arguments. IGF-1 and GH administered locally WILL cause localized growth, hence your statement that site injections don't work is wrong.

You are just not making sence. Whether or not GH and IGF-1 cause localized growth is completely irrelevent to this discussion-- we're talking about AAS.

Localized injections of oil-based gear like test enth, etc, will stretch the fascia over time and allow for more muscle growth, again proving your statement wrong.

If you re-read my post, I said that injections of AAS do not cause AR mediated growth locally.

Finally, localized injections of test suspension have been proven to have higher affinity for AR receptors in the muscle injected into, simply b/c they are closer, once AGAIN disproving your statement.

Now this is absurd.. But, since it has been proven, as you say, then you will have no trouble directing me to medline references (that are relevent to this this last claim).

I'm waiting.

 

[MR. BMJ]

Yeah sorry Tux, but I agree with Andy on this one.....i'd have to see the studies for this as well.

BMJ

 

[Tux]

You won't get them, b/c you don't deserve them. I've given you your proof half a dozen times, and you can't admit to being wrong on a single point. I remember being like you... maybe someday you'll grow up. I'm out of this convo.

 

[krishna]

Neither of you has proven anything. First of all, you can't prove things just by saying I told you so; second, nothing is "proven" in science. All you can do is disprove things until it's clear what the reality of things are. You don't prove anything. You start with a theory with the goal to try to disprove it. Both of you should go read about something called the scientific method.

 

[Singleton]

Yeah, well, it may work. It may not.

More evidence is needed.

 

[Tux]

Krishna, here's your exact scientific method, believe I work with it enough to know how to use it. 1) I, and thousands of others, have observed site injections. 2) Our hypothesis is, they work, for a variety of reasons, otherwise people would have long ago stopped doing them. 3) Our prediction? That one's tougher, but it's something like, site-injecting AAS and IGF-1/GH, along with other growth factors, will have a localized effect higher than that of the systemic effect. 4) This has BEEN tested, dozens if not hundreds of times, in both fully double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and in the real world by bbers. 5) Yes, we are still testing discrepancies, but this has been done enough times by enough studies and enough people with positive results to be considered a proven theory for certain, if not yet a scientific FACT. It took over 2000 YEARS to PROVE that the Earth wasn't round, so are you willing to wait 2 more millenia to believe that site injections are a FACT? If so, your loss. There's enough evidence, and enough testing of hypotheses, to easily support this as a well-established theory, and I see no reason to try and discredit 1000's of medical studies and personal experiments by implying I have no knowledge of something which I can obviously use better than you Ok, so if you can have a comeback to that, a GOOD one, you win



1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.



I edited this for the reason stated.... we mostly all have valid points of view, and we're going to stick by them until someone can unequivocally prove us wrong... and none of us is likely going to be around long enough for that to happen. Let's agree to disagree, and if it works for you, yay. If it doesn't, well then it doesn't. That's all there is to it

 

[Singleton]

Site injections DO NOT WORK via AR to cause localized growth. Ester, no ester, oil, water suspension- It does not matter.

Do you have some medline refs to back this up? Not trying to say you're wrong, I just want to know.

 

[LVTitan]

Site injections DO NOT WORK via AR to cause localized growth. Ester, no ester, oil, water suspension- It does not matter.

Start sticking needles in muscles that aren't ideal for IM injections and you may wind up really hurting yourself.

Delts, quads, glutes ONLY.

easy tiger we do not all mix injection sites for the purpose of 'site enhancement' ,
like stated above, when taking ED shots, you need to start moving your injection sites around to keep from hitting the same spot too often. this is the most common reason for site injections. any good size muscle group will work. my bros hit : pecs,tris,bis,lats,traps,delts,quads,glutes,calves when they have to, you are not going to hurt yourself (may experience pain, but not do damage)

 

[Bruce]

tuxy is a wizard i take his word, all i know is the most ripped motherfucker i personally know swears by winstrol spot injections and i definitely think it works, it just hurts my delts too much.

 

[krishna]

Krishna, here's your exact scientific method, believe I work with it enough to know how to use it. 1) I, and thousands of others, have observed site injections. 2) Our hypothesis is, they work, for a variety of reasons, otherwise people would have long ago stopped doing them. 3) Our prediction? That one's tougher, but it's something like, site-injecting AAS and IGF-1/GH, along with other growth factors, will have a localized effect higher than that of the systemic effect. 4) This has BEEN tested, dozens if not hundreds of times, in both fully double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and in the real world by bbers. 5) Yes, we are still testing discrepancies, but this has been done enough times by enough studies and enough people with positive results to be considered a proven theory for certain, if not yet a scientific FACT. It took over 2000 YEARS to PROVE that the Earth wasn't round, so are you willing to wait 2 more millenia to believe that site injections are a FACT? If so, your loss. There's enough evidence, and enough testing of hypotheses, to easily support this as a well-established theory, and I see no reason to try and discredit 1000's of medical studies and personal experiments by implying I have no knowledge of something which I can obviously use better than you Ok, so if you can have a comeback to that, a GOOD one, you win



1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.



I edited this for the reason stated.... we mostly all have valid points of view, and we're going to stick by them until someone can unequivocally prove us wrong... and none of us is likely going to be around long enough for that to happen. Let's agree to disagree, and if it works for you, yay. If it doesn't, well then it doesn't. That's all there is to it

Hey Tux I wasn't saying it isn't reasonable to suggest that site injections exist. I'm a reasonable man, and presented with reasonable evidence in light of something, that's almost always the way I align my beliefs. I never said site injections didn't work. I was simply sick of watching you two argue over it and both saying eachother's side was proven. The goal in science is to disprove things. If you try to disprove a hypothesis over and over and it always stands, then any reasonable person would believe that since it could not be disproved, then it is inlign with reality. Again, you haven't "proven" anything, you've simply shed light on reality. A true scientist will never say they've proven anything; that's just not how they think. There is always a possibility of even a time tested fact not being right upon further evidence. I'm not doubting that you truely believe in site injections. You know way more about this than I do. In fact, seeing that you have such a strong conviction on the matter causes me to lean toward your views on it. You are a smart bro, and I give you credit. I was simply pointing out one of the most fundamental concepts of science that any scientist would know. I wasn't saying you were wrong in your beliefs; I hope you didn't see it that way (apparently you did). Peace Tux.

 

[Tux]

I didn't take it personally at all Krishna, in point of fact, I'm glad you pointed that out. I do tend to rely more on my personal knowledge and experience more than I do on actual "scientific" evidence, i.e. medline studies and the like. The problem is, most of those studies don't exist, so the experiments are done in the field, under rather uncontrolled conditions, so it's difficult to judge. I was just explaining to you that yes, I did remember the scientific method, and I could support my theory quite easily by using it. However, since this "theory", nor any of us, has been around long enough to consider "site injections DO work" a LAW, like gravity, you were right to remind me of that. I'll hit you with K when I can bro! I still stand by site injections, especially of non-ester steroids and IGF-1/GH, as being effective

 

[Singleton]

Site injections DO NOT WORK via AR to cause localized growth. Ester, no ester, oil, water suspension- It does not matter.

Finally, localized injections of test suspension have been proven to have higher affinity for AR receptors in the muscle injected into

If either of you are able to pull up some proof, well, that would help.

I felt like they helped. Tux felt like they worked. Needsize felt like they did not do anything special. I really think a study is needed.

Here's a study you can do:

The Efficacy of Site Injections

Procedure:
1) measure biceps.
2) Inject only into 1 bicep throughout cycle.
3) train biceps equally
4) measure biceps throughout cycle, and 1 week after cycle, so as not to be fooled by swelling

materials:
This can be done with either esterified (suspension, winny) or non-esterified (prop), but not both. that way, it will be known which works.

 

[Tux]

Singleton, you don't need a medical study for proof. You have a certain # of AR receptors in your muscles yes? And at NO time are all of them full, there will always be some empty ones. So, by injecting something like test base directly into a muscle group, THAT muscle has a much higher local concentration of that steroid, and therefor will bind more of the hormone in it's AR receptors. Sure, it may not be a lot more, but when you have 100mg in a muscle like the bicep, you really think that NONE of it gets used first by that muscle? The blood supply through the bicep itself, the capillary bed in the muscle, makes SURE that AR's in the bicep get first pick at the hormone. Obviously there's far more hormone than the AR's in the bicep alone can attach to, so the rest is carried throughout the body like normal. To say that the biceps don't get first pick of attaching is ludicrous though. That's like saying, if you inject novocaine into your gums, your cheeks will become numb before your gums do, when obviously that's not the case. The tissue injected into gets higher priority, and there are plenty of studies on that. I'll grant that novocaine is a localized agent. So take morphine. You're telling me, when you inject morphine into a muscle, your whole body pain diminishes at the same rate? I can tell you from experience that's NOT true. I've injected pentazocine HCL, an opiate stronger than nubain, into my stomach, sub-q. What lost pain sensation first? You guessed it, my stomach... then the feeling spread out from there. IM, sub-q, as long as it's not IV it will have the same effect. Higher % attachment at the site of injection. The science is there, it's just not written down in a medical journal b/c the experiment would be deemed unethical and against the hypocratic oath. If anyone still chooses to believe that site injects of IGF-1/GH or un-esterified gear don't work TO SOME DEGREE... well, they're the ones who you can never convince, even when the whole world can see they're wrong. I'm done with this topic, man I typed waaaay too much.

 

[needsize]

I'm not trying to start shit here, but I can tell that some of you havent been around here long enough.....
The amount of people whose opinion on this stuff, or anything else having to do with chemical enhancement, I would take as gospel I can count on maybe 2 or 3 fingers.....and Andy13 is one of them. I have an honours degree myself, and half of his posts, I am lucky to understand every 2nd or 3rd word. He is easily the most knowlegeable guy on the subject of steroids and their effect on the body, that I have EVER met
And I'm not just saying that because he happens to agree with my findings after the extensive research I've done on my own

 

[Tux]

Well when I get my medical degree NS, I'll come back and give you all the studies you want, even if I have to do the studies myself lol. And I'm not starting shit either, but an honours degree in even a related field doesn't mean he actually KNOWS what he's talking about, or that you do. We all have to take what we read here with a big ass grain of salt. No disrespect to you or Andy13, but I believe otherwise, and scientific THEORY does back me up. Not scientific PROOF, or a LAW... but THEORY. And remember, Einstein's ideas about relativity are believed by basically every one of the smartest men and women on earth, and they're still THEORIES... hence Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I'll leave it at that, again no disrespect to anyone, I just happen to disagree with Andy13... and yes, I actually DO understand every word of every post I've ever read by him, being in medicine myself. Well, g'day

 

[needsize]

well if spot injects work, can you explain then why several cycles of suspension into my bis did absolutely nothing, as well as 3cc of oil a week for 12 weeks, and still nothing

 

[Tux]

If you'll note, in most of my posts I DID say that how well it worked was questionable, and it certainly differs from person to person. I can personally attest that my calves have gone from pathetic 13's to 15's in under a year due mainly to site injects. I did the same exercises, same cycles, didn't change very much overall weight, but my calves freakin' grew alright. They're still small, but the site injections definitely helped. Oh and I used inj. winny that I made myself, PEG-based so it didn't make me limp for a week. 1cc in each calf on calf day, took it orally the rest of the week. If it wasn't due to the site injections, then why did the 2 years of prior workouts with the same basic diet and routine do almost nothing? Worked for me, didn't work for you. That's why people keep doing it bro, b/c it DOES work for some people. I'm sorry it didn't for you, test suspension in the biceps, you're more a man than I'll ever be, even if I weren't a penguin As for the oils, 3cc's a week probably just wasn't enough to stretch the fascia very much, you already have big arms. Problem with that is, enough oil to stretch the fascia just enough to allow growth is probably just a tiny bit less than the amount that'll make you look like Greg Valentino, and few people are willing to take that kind of risk and pain. Again, it worked for me, it didn't for you... scientifically, we have no proof one way or the other, and there are valid theories on both sides. We'll leave it at that aight? One man's trash is another man's treasure

 

[needsize]

If you'll note, in most of my posts I DID say that how well it worked was questionable, and it certainly differs from person to person. I can personally attest that my calves have gone from pathetic 13's to 15's in under a year due mainly to site injects. I did the same exercises, same cycles, didn't change very much overall weight, but my calves freakin' grew alright. They're still small, but the site injections definitely helped. Oh and I used inj. winny that I made myself, PEG-based so it didn't make me limp for a week. 1cc in each calf on calf day, took it orally the rest of the week. If it wasn't due to the site injections, then why did the 2 years of prior workouts with the same basic diet and routine do almost nothing? Worked for me, didn't work for you. That's why people keep doing it bro, b/c it DOES work for some people. I'm sorry it didn't for you, test suspension in the biceps, you're more a man than I'll ever be, even if I weren't a penguin As for the oils, 3cc's a week probably just wasn't enough to stretch the fascia very much, you already have big arms. Problem with that is, enough oil to stretch the fascia just enough to allow growth is probably just a tiny bit less than the amount that'll make you look like Greg Valentino, and few people are willing to take that kind of risk and pain. Again, it worked for me, it didn't for you... scientifically, we have no proof one way or the other, and there are valid theories on both sides. We'll leave it at that aight? One man's trash is another man's treasure

some good points...as much as I want those 20" guns bad, I hate bi injects and only do them now when I run out other places to make holes.
For what its worth, that 3cc was all in one shot, thats huge volume for a shot into a small muscle like a bi

 

[granby140]

i can hit the left bi no pain but the right one always hurts for me

 

[bigmann245]

a buddy of mine did the bicept injection and i thought he was crazy. i see no need to do it. the glutes and shoulders are fine for me. havent tried quads yet but i am concidering it.