Wrangel7
Member
HGH section:
To oversimplify it: growth (mostly for muscle, but the acromegalic prognathism also probably countered my slight recession too) and recovery — I simply enjoy training hard, and I like to maximise whatever I'm fixated on at any point in time in a very platonic sense. It's also not as if I started with 90iu straight up. I started with a much lower dose and had sides for a while, which then subsided; then, I increased the dose and continued increasing it as sides weren't really appearing other than a lot of water retention and the HRV & RHR stuff. In fact, the hand numbness was worse at the start at less than a vial a day and was virtually non-existent by the time I got to over 2 vials a day. Only persistent side was the negative impact to HRV & RHR I talked about, which then eventually stopped and reversed (although there was some intervention from me there).
It was only around 90 iu for around a few months. You guys should also remember that my IGF-1 levels are NOT the ones you'd expect from 90 iu:
I'm aware exogenous HGH dosage conversion to IGF-1 is very variable/vague; however, these are IGF-1 levels that are easily representative of sub 20 iu per day dosing, so it's not as if I'm experiencing the IGF-1 elevation usually expected from 90 iu a day. This is the WHOLE POINT of the discussion.
I also had a very high inj frequency, which also causes desensitisation.
I'll add this comment as it's somewhat relevant.
Thank you!
IQ banter section:
Not hoping to revive/drag out this "discussion" too much, so these might be my last responses on this topic unless you guys want to go through with escrow.
Not hoping to revive/drag out this "discussion" too much, so these might be my last responses on this topic unless you guys want to go through with escrow.
Yep. 1 (σ) sigma = 1 SD = 15 points RE: IQ
There's a convenient lifehack when someone's claiming you're BSing. You can use a neutral third party to verify ANY measurable claim (as I've offered to do with escrow), and you can stay anonymous as you only reveal the data to the escrow, who then verifies whether the claim is true or false and consequently resolves the transaction.
Is anyone willing to actually contest my IQ claim (WAIS-III test report about me with an IQ score of 133) because I can verify it with this method if anyone's up for it.
@Benf15harp @Trenbolonetax @lillijadeclyde @glpfun @LGOP528 @egruberman @Middus ?
As much as you're prepared to give. £1,000? £5,000? £10,000? More? It's not as if I don't have a report from a clinical neuropsychologist at an internationally renowned institution, where it, clear as day, says I was assessed on the WAIS-III and have a "133" score.
Coming from the guy who can't multiply 15 by 2 and add it to 100 (or infer that's how you calculate an IQ at least a few (≥2) sigma over 100). Hint: 133>130.
You're calling me stupid, but I'm not the one making a factual error in virtually every single interaction between us so far. Can you cite one factual inaccuracy I've made? Just one? I can cite plenty from you (as I have done).
Tbh, I shouldn't be surprised that you don't know what "rebuttal" means and don't use it correctly when you struggle with words like "few" even when presented with a definition.
@LGOP528, come on, I'm sure you can post your IQ score or any sort of g-loaded data you have, and we can compare and use escrow to verify, if you're claiming I'm stupid, what would that make you?
I didn't bring up IQ. I just falsified someone else's (@Benf15harp) 's claim about my IQ.
This is what it feels like talking to some board members. Not all; some are probably smarter than me and not by a small amount either.
They still administer it as recently as the 2020s in the UK in some major neurological centres. Not sure why.
Well, if the doubters put up money in escrow, some small financial benefit may come of it.
For the IQ discussion to be substantive, should we commit to limiting it just to the escrow verification instead of shitslinging because it's not going to be very productive otherwise?
