Trusted GH

[Dr JIM]

Ive been concerned about the risk previously but now the data is certainly more convincing in the association can be identified and classified to those with BASELINE HTN. The latter has only recently been elucidated in the literature IMO.

It's been known for some time both and aerobic and anaerobic exercise may result in the "athletic heart syndrome" but to what extent AAS are causative remains questionable, especially in the absence of HTN. This is the unknown I've questioned previously and still do bc the evidence is lacking.

More importantly to what extent is the cardiomegaly seen in the AHS reversible once AAS and/or excecise are discontinued? This is a critical point bc reversibility defines the AHS and differentiates it from HYPERTROPHY esp concentric vs eccentric.

I mean if AAS was all that is required for LVH then we would be seeing A LOT of "athletes" with big hearts, so something else IS REQUIRED. It's for this reason I take issue with the notion AAS are exclusively responsible for LVH, when its clear they are NOT!

 

[Dr JIM]

...... are NOT, at least for the overwhelming majority of folk.

It's for this reason I harp on and on about these fellas BP, bc high end "anaerobic" activity such as weightlifting increases afterload which increases SVR, and an elevated SVR has a direct correlation to the development of LVH.

AAS may increase BP, yep they may but once again dissociating the cause of the elevated BP has proved quite difficult. Do AAS selectively increase SVR, enhance Cardiac muscle synthesis resulting LVH, is the responsible mechanism hormonally mediated, OR what about the EXERCISE many partake in causative?

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

...... are NOT, at least for the overwhelming majority of folk.

It's for this reason I harp on and on about these fellas BP, bc high end "anaerobic" activity such as weightlifting increases afterload which increases SVR, and an elevated SVR has a direct correlation to the development of LVH.

I thought perhaps you had become convinced that AAS are solely responsible for LVH. That would have been a significant change from your previous position.

Now if your position on generic GH changes you'll really get my attention.

 

[Dr JIM]

IDK, but it's more than just an AAS thing IME

 

[Dr JIM]

I thought perhaps you had become convinced that AAS are solely responsible for LVH. That would have been a significant change from your previous position.

Now if your position on generic GH changes you'll really get my attention.

LOL, then I would qualify for, and belong in, the funny farm along with several other Meso noob qualifiers

As far a the latter is concerned, I'm looking for ways to finance my early retirement, hmm so "if ya can't beat them join em" lol.

Of course doing that would force me to leave Meso bc these Mean Meso Members would give me an endless rash OF SHIT, and I mean ENDLESS, LOL!

Oh but wait, there's always Pro Mus as my future home of rufuse. LMAFO

 

[Nutpuncher]

Time of day GH administration is likely much to do about nothing bc although there may be some differences in the IGF levels generated, whether such changes are of clinical import remains questionable IMO.

That being said, in part bc of GH's several minute half life, I tend to prefer BID dosing ESPECIALLY at high (greater than 4-5 IU/day) dosages

You want to impact IGF levels w GH, sure, then ensure the rHGH your running is Pharmaceutical

And for goodness sake ensure you dont have a hypertensive baseline, bla, bla, bla.

For which test?

 

[jackmeoff1]

Check an IGF level bc if you're below the tenth percentile supplemental GH MAY prove to be a worthwhile endeavor as it can improve LBM, with negligible adverse effects based UPON CLINICAL STUDIES.

My baseline Igf is 198 ng/dl . So boosting this with 3 or so iu used in conjunction with testosterone replacement wouldn't improve recovery greater than Trt alone ?

 

[Dr JIM]

@mands you posted a study on growth retarded kidos a while back that investigated different GH dosing schedules.

If I recall correctly the study looked at QD vs QOD dosing intervals of rHGH and a 20% increase in IGF levels was noted in the QOD group?

I'm looking for it but can't locate it in my GH file, can you post it again mate?

Although statistically significant the question then becomes is a 20% IGF increase (a change in IGF from say 200ng/dl to 240) clinically significant from an SKM anabolic perspective? The study authors used changes in GROWTH RATE as their barometer of statistical significance.

 

[rpbb]

@mands you posted a study on growth retarded kidos a while back that investigated different GH dosing schedules.

If I recall correctly the study looked at QD vs QOD dosing intervals of rHGH and a 20% increase in IGF levels was noted in the QOD group?

I'm looking for it but can't locate it in my GH file, can you post it again mate?

Although statistically significant the question then becomes is a 20% IGF increase (a change in IGF from say 200ng/dl to 240) clinically significant from an SKM anabolic perspective? The study authors used changes in GROWTH RATE as their barometer of statistical significance.

glad you're bringing this up, I see so many people worried about the quality, that they forget about the dosing and how much to take for what. seems to me, from what I've been reading, you need about half the pharma grade as the generic, and like everything else, more isn't better

 

[Bob Dole]

@muscle96ss any Simec updates?

 

[muscle96ss]

@muscle96ss any Simec updates?

Nothing new to report. Their reports are inaccurate, all 11 samples including the GH direct from a US pharmacy. I am waiting for them to re-examine the data and either get it right or give us back the over $6K we sent them. They are accredited,so they have an certain level of obligation.

 

[Dr JIM]

@muscle96ss any Simec updates?

What are you wanting to stir the pot a little, lol.

FYI there's no one I trust more than Millard and if Millard was running and/or supervising a significant portion of those tests SIMEC has posted the results for, I would be happy as a lark.

But experience tells me there are MANY more ways to screw up GH testing than there to get it right and for that reason a certain degree of checks and balances should be instuted to ensure every lab remains true to themselves and consumers.

 

[Bob Dole]

No doubt Millard is the man, but I have the utmost confidence in muscle96ss. Simec has left a lot to not be impressed about. I have to say I was very impressed by http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/members/janoshik.html and how good and professional a job he did.

 

[mands]

Don't be so sure on Simec. I am not very happy with how things have turned out thus far. Our 6mg Serostim sample supposedly contained 22.6iu of 99.5% GH and Karl's GH contains 28.7iu of 98% GH. In fact all 11 samples were grossly overdosed. They have yet to give me the raw data and it has been 2 days since they said they would look at the data and chromatograms again and see if they can find any errors. At the moment we are looking at $6K down the drain.

I guess I did not see these results.

mands

 

[muscle96ss]

I guess I did not see these results.

mands

I am not posting them until they get corrected. No need to have a bunch of wrong lab reports floating around; we have enough of those already.

 

[mands]

@mands you posted a study on growth retarded kidos a while back that investigated different GH dosing schedules.

If I recall correctly the study looked at QD vs QOD dosing intervals of rHGH and a 20% increase in IGF levels was noted in the QOD group?

I'm looking for it but can't locate it in my GH file, can you post it again mate?

Although statistically significant the question then becomes is a 20% IGF increase (a change in IGF from say 200ng/dl to 240) clinically significant from an SKM anabolic perspective? The study authors used changes in GROWTH RATE as their barometer of statistical significance.

Did you ever locate this study Jim?

mands

 

[mands]

I am not posting them until they get corrected. No need to have a bunch of wrong lab reports floating around; we have enough of those already.

Okay I thought you were referring to labs already posted in another thread. I hope SIMEC can provide the information you need and others need as well.

mands

 

[Dr JIM]

No doubt Millard is the man, but I have the utmost confidence in muscle96ss. Simec has left a lot to not be impressed about. I have to say I was very impressed by http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/members/janoshik.html and how good and professional a job he did.

Muscles96 is an "administrator" for PM a censored PED source board that is the pulpit for GH generic vendors.

I think the colloquialism "having the fox guard the hen house" is much more appropriate than "trust", or "confidence", but that's me.

I doubt MH would be mum if SIMEC results mimicked those that I posted a while back on several of PMs GGH products!

 

[Bob Dole]

The results were grossly over dosed, which would be good news for the sources, so I can't agree with you on this one.

 

[Seve]

I apologize for my ignorance in advance, but why is the fact that they are overdosed an issue. I understand wanting to accurately dose. With Hgh is it bad because they did something wrong in the process. I am starting to see what the good Dr. Is talking about. Theven product has to be dead nuts on ,outherwise it basically trash.

Another question. Being such a fragile compound I never hear much concern of shipping methods. The box's being tossed around ,and constant change in temperature, does concern me, or am I wrong?