Duecie
New Member
Would taking 10iu 6days a week vs 7 days or 5 days and 2off make a big diffrence
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
10iu 6days a week
- Thread starter Duecie
- Start date
Eddie.
Member
Total IU weekly is what matters and obviously don’t pin 60 IU once a week. IGF has a quite long window and some people prefer dosing HGH every other day for example. As far as IGF and muscle growth it’s the same, in terms of lipolysis in general the more frequent the better but tbh I doubt difference is noticeable.
RockyP
Member
Unlikely to make a difference
Just an FYI if you’re at / under 220 lbs, 9 iu daily is the upper limit behind which you are inviting cardiac remodeling effects.
Banana Joe
Member
Where do these numbers come from? Is there some kind of linear progression of dose correlating with musclemass?
RockyP
Member
0.03 mg / kg (low dose in this study) translates to 9 iu daily for a 100 kg person
Banana Joe
Member
Thanks for the PDF.
I feel like deriving such presumably safe dosages, by scaling mg/kg according to body weight is not really accurate. The average 100kg male has significantly less metabolically active tissue, compared to a 100kg BB.
If drug clearance highly depends on lean body mass, I don't think the mg/kg can simply be scaled linearly.
Example: If all other factors are being assumed to be equal, and both twins take the same TRT-ish dose of test, the more muscular twin will have lower average test levels than his less muscular brother, because he clears the drug faster.
I am likely oversimplifying, but those are my general thoughts regarding this.
RockyP
Member
Luckily there aren't many guys on this board who are 220 lbs of lean muscle who need more than 9 iu of GH daily.
FWIW, Paul Barnett has said he's tried going over 9 iu and the side effects limit him from doing so. And I believe got his pro card weight around 260. He also said no material change in IGF-1 levels over 9 iu for him, but we know that the serum IGF-1 levels do not tell the whole story re: efficacy of HGH.
Banana Joe
Member
That is not what I meant.
If metabolically active tissue is higher in a BB, I ( at 90kg give or take) could tolerate 9iu without deleterious effects, on my heart or other organs, in the same way as a 100kg average man - if not better.
If my assumption is correct, that would mean that safe or effective dosages in general should be derived based on lean muscle mass. Which in itself is actually a simplification of metabolically active tissue (organs vs muscle mass), if I am not mistaken.
RockyP
Member
I understand the argument, I'm just not sure it is accurate. It's not clear to me that there would be a difference in cardiac remodeling effects in an obese 220 lb person vs a 220 lb bodybuilder. In fact, one could argue the effects would be worse in the bodybuilder given the other drugs they are likely taking the the heavy lifting they are doing that can cause LVH without the GH.
Banana Joe
Member
According to my, surely very simplistic understanding of the issue, it should be accurate. At least assuming one could have such amounts of muscle mass without taking any other drugs.
That being said:
You are very likely right about this, but this would rather mean, that the formula to derive the right dosage for mg/kg is a lot more complex, than just scaling it up for a BB. Given how complex it will actually then be, the easiest might actually really be, to simply assume linear scaling.
You would then need a scaling for single or compounding risk factors, so I don't know how feasible it really, is to create a reliable formula.
How are you getting these numbers? You seem to be making the assumption that anything above the "low-dose" would cause negative effects but we have no data on the range between low and high dose.
Also, doesn't the chart on p. 6 show that although LV mass increased at 4 weeks, it actually decreased at 12 weeks (compared to baseline)? Indicating these changes could be transient / short-term?
BigDadd7
Member
It's your heart. You're free to risk it however you choose. You can either go with go with data, or make a lot of assumptions and not go with the data. At my age, I'll hold off on pushing that particular envelope.
Banana Joe
Member
I am not planning to take even that dose for longer than maybe 8 weeks. But my interest in getting an answer in regards to that is still there, because linear scaling of dosages still seems fundamentally flawed to me.
BigDadd7
Member
We definitely need more info.
Ateam2023
Member
at that dose , i wouldn't think so,
Banana Joe
Member
The question is still, why would you want to skip any days in a week?
As far as I know these dosing schemes were born out of necessity, as they were designed to maximise the effect of a very limited quantity of HGH.
Just throwing out numbers, but apparently it deemed that 5iu for 5 days a week is more efficacious than 3.5iu a day. I have my doubts, that this is actually the case, but that was the base on how protocols were designed.
Now HGH is so cheap (and food so expensive...), that *not* skipping 1-2 days will not make a meaningful dent in your overall budget for bodybuilding.
Someone please correct me, if I am wrong at one or more points.
Banana Joe
Member
It may or not be of significance if you account for all factors.
And it is not like we can't just look from things from the reverse end, like just taking more or less of a drug, to achieve the desired result. Like the test levels in my example, or adjust exemestan dose to get the E2 to whatever you want it to be.
In both those cases there will be no, even just measurable, long term harm done, whereas in the GH example we will simply not be able to detect (within the possibilities of someone not having access to weekly MRIs) a detrimental change and therefore eventually deleterious outcome.
But it is not just HGH where a better formula to approximate the max. safe dose would be desirable.
19-Nors come to mind, leaving aside that tren is almost immediately toxic in higher doses, we could correctly scale the dosage of this class in the steroid family tree, based on muscle mass, if we knew what the max (either accumulatively or immediate dose) dose is, before effects on the brain (Alzheimer etc) will become so likely anyone with a brain (pun intended) would stop.
BigDadd7
Member
There are so many of our peds that just don't have the clinical research we would like. The best we can do is collect anecdotal reports and go off of that.
It was a general question / comment on interpreting the data, not applicable to determining my own dosage. I'm a small female, 3iu is my personal ceiling for my goals.
