Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Test c, sub q, lumps under skin?

UKG

New member
Having been on TRT for a few months and getting dialled in, it’s opened me up to injectable options. TRT is daily sub q test c, so to keep some consistency I’ve also gone this route just to get my feet wet, basically trebling my TRT dose. So UGL test c for 2 days, every 3rd day I use the pharma test c.
My question is, using the ugl I get a lump and some tenderness for 2-3 days after injecting. Using my prescription stuff I get no lump, no tenderness. Is this stuff ok to carry on with? Appreciate it’s not going to be the same quality, just wondering if it’s ok to use?
Thanks guys,
 
You didn’t tell the most valuable information needed for us to answer your question : how much did you pin subq.
 
Also... if you’re asking the question it’s because you’re already doubting the legitimacy of your UGL no? And if you’re doubting your UGL legitimacy why are you taking it?
 
Yeah, the quantity would have been helpful, fair point! Only 0.25ml per jab. When I say lumps, it’s not a huge visible lump, but I can feel it under the skin.
The UGL came highly recommended by a member here, so I have some confidence. I’ve never used ‘black market’ test before, so just asking if this is usual as it doesn’t happen with the stuff I get on script. The lumps dissipate after 3 days tops.
 
UKG said:
Yeah, the quantity would have been helpful, fair point! Only 0.25ml per jab. When I say lumps, it’s not a huge visible lump, but I can feel it under the skin.
The UGL came highly recommended by a member here, so I have some confidence. I’ve never used ‘black market’ test before, so just asking if this is usual as it doesn’t happen with the stuff I get on script. The lumps dissipate after 3 days tops.
Click to expand...
I get lumps from time to time doing subq usually it goes away within a couple hours and it’s usually because you didn’t inject deep enough in the fat tissue and you injected under the skins. This will immediately create a lump that looks like a allergic reaction. The other option is when people inject too much volume subq.
 
Now if the lump gets worse / hot to touch / high fever I would start to consider taking action.
 
Ok, thanks for your responses. I don’t think it’s injection technique as it’s specific to this oil and hasn’t happened in almost 7 months of pretty much daily jabs with the ‘proper’ stuff. There’s been no redness or warmth suggesting infection or reaction. Is it normal to get variation in colour or should cyp always be the same?
Really in two minds here whether to continue.
 
Your UGL stuff could very well be in a different carrier oil as well. My script is in grape seed while my UGL is MCT. Could explain the different reaction as well as the color.
 
Agree with both the guys above bro. Likely a different oil. Could explain discomfort but my first thought was that you’ve been injecting a bigger amount which will leave a lump.

Massaging the area after injecting can help.
 
UKG said:
Yeah, the quantity would have been helpful, fair point! Only 0.25ml per jab. When I say lumps, it’s not a huge visible lump, but I can feel it under the skin.
The UGL came highly recommended by a member here, so I have some confidence. I’ve never used ‘black market’ test before, so just asking if this is usual as it doesn’t happen with the stuff I get on script. The lumps dissipate after 3 days tops.
Click to expand...

It’s most likely just a reaction to a carrier or too much benzyl alcohol/benzyl benzoate. A lot of UGLs use way too much of that crap and most guys just don’t have a problem with it. I’ve had problems with it for sure.

Are their products darker in color than your prescription?

Also... a lot of garbage UGLs come highly recommended. Guys just find one that is better and cheaper than the others they’ve used and for some reason assume their source is the best and that’s as good as it gets.
 
Thanks all, sounds like it’s not a major concern then, I’ll carry on for a while and monitor it. To answer all the questions though,
1/ it’s not quantity as every third day I’ll do the same quantity of the prescribed test without the same issue
2/ half inch pin
3/ UGL is a lot darker, almost an orangey brown.
Thanks again
 
UKG said:
Thanks all, sounds like it’s not a major concern then, I’ll carry on for a while and monitor it. To answer all the questions though,
1/ it’s not quantity as every third day I’ll do the same quantity of the prescribed test without the same issue
2/ half inch pin
3/ UGL is a lot darker, almost an orangey brown.
Thanks again
Click to expand...
Can you post a pic of the oils?
 
I’ll also add this. I’ve seen UGL test being over dosed when tested. My assumption would be so you feel their gear is better. The higher concentration could cause irritation as well.
 
The UGL probably uses GSO which is a little thicker than the CSO usually used in pharma stuff.

If the BA or BB were too high it might burn but would be less likely to leave a lump and if it were MCT oil, the gear shouldn't be darker than the pharma stuff.

Long story short, you're probably fine. Especially, if you haven't given yourself an infection already.
 
UKG said:
Thanks all, sounds like it’s not a major concern then, I’ll carry on for a while and monitor it. To answer all the questions though,
1/ it’s not quantity as every third day I’ll do the same quantity of the prescribed test without the same issue
2/ half inch pin
3/ UGL is a lot darker, almost an orangey brown.
Thanks again
Click to expand...

Yeah I had the same exact problem with a UGL and their stuff was that same color. You’re probably fine, wouldn’t worry about it. But I definitely wouldn’t buy gear that doesn’t look clean now that you know. If you need a source just message me.
 
Invalid Link Removedto the left is the UGL. Not as dark as perhaps I described now I have it in front of me but clearly very different
 
Zvch said:
Yeah I had the same exact problem with a UGL and their stuff was that same color. You’re probably fine, wouldn’t worry about it. But I definitely wouldn’t buy gear that doesn’t look clean now that you know. If you need a source just message me.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I’m in England so probably not! Cheers anyway
 
trumac said:
Looks almost like tren lol
Click to expand...

Well I did wonder if it was a different compound. I have another vial of test c that I got from the same place a couple of months prior (not in the photo) and never used yet. It’s much paler. Maybe I should sample that tomorrow? See if it behaves differently.
 
UKG said:
Thanks but I’m in England so probably not! Cheers anyway
Click to expand...

im also in the UK, also use an excellent UGL and they recently switched to a different oil which gave a more orange colour (vial looks exactly like yours so I think we use the same place).

ive no issues with it at all going im (haven’t used it for a cruise dose sub q as been on a blast since they switched). If it’s the same UGL I’ve had multiple bloods on their gear and from a test standpoint it’s legit AF
 
UKG said:
Invalid Link Removedto the left is the UGL. Not as dark as perhaps I described now I have it in front of me but clearly very different
Click to expand...

Yea...that looks a lot more like tren that it does any test ive ever seen. I’d ask the supplier; it could just be that they’re using a carrier oil like sesame oil or peanut oil lmao.
 
There would be no reason to sell tren as test; if anything it would be vice versa. GSO is pretty cheap. I don't know why anyone would sub it with a different oil. Cyp in GSO with low solvent content would be pretty thick. It just makes the most sense to me.
 
I just wondered if it was as simple as the wrong label rather than a deliberate miss selling. But I suspect @Whisky probably has it right, it is the same supplier, and he says they’ve changed oils. Last 2 days I been using the lighter shade vial I bought a couple of months ago and the problem has resolved itself. I guess I just won’t use the dark stuff, doesn’t agree with me, at least not sub q.
 
I just wondered if it was as simple as the wrong label rather than a deliberate miss selling. But I suspect @Whisky probably has it right, it is the same supplier, and he says they’ve changed oils. Last 2 days I been using the lighter shade vial I bought a couple of months ago and the problem has resolved itself. I guess I just won’t use the dark stuff, doesn’t agree with me, at least not sub q.
 
I just wondered if it was as simple as the wrong label rather than a deliberate miss selling. But I suspect @Whisky probably has it right, it is the same supplier, and he says they’ve changed oils. Last 2 days I been using the lighter shade vial I bought a couple of months ago and the problem has resolved itself. I guess I just won’t use the dark stuff, doesn’t agree with me, at least not sub q.
 
nostrum420 said:
There would be no reason to sell tren as test; if anything it would be vice versa. GSO is pretty cheap. I don't know why anyone would sub it with a different oil. Cyp in GSO with low solvent content would be pretty thick. It just makes the most sense to me.
Click to expand...
Yeah it wouldn’t make any sense to do this intentionally. I have cyp in GSO and it is nowhere near as dark but who knows. It does seem like he tried the old batch and it’s fixed the problem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top