Hogg & GH Vets. Question about GH dose.

[RxMan]

I'm thinking about buying a Serostim 126iu kit. I have read a ton on this site and others and it seems like the proper dose varies greatly. Right now, I was just going to get one kit (~$425) for now. I'm considering running it at 2ius per day 5 on 2 off. This would be 10ius per week and last a little over 12 weeks. Would this method be worth my money? I also plan on running test and eq with it. Goal would be to lean out and add some quality muscle.

RxMan

 

[Big Moose]

I would suggest 4iu per day as a minimum. Possibly jumping to 6iu over a three month period of time. Otherwise it is not worth it in my experience.

 

[MaxRep]

If you're looking for anabolic help and adding muscle mass through GH you need to think about getting into the area of 6iu's/day and using insulin concurrently is a must. As is using it concurrently with an AAS cycle.

If you're still gaining off AAS cycles, the $400/month you'll spend on GH is a waste, IMO. Hogg may feel differently and you can PM him for his views.

However, as a heads up, Hogg isn't as nice as I am towards people who haven't done their homework before asking questions.

MaxRep

 

[da game]

I would recommend that you start off between 4-6 IUs a day. If you can't afford that, just stick to the juice and save your money.

 

[RxMan]

Thanks. I'll go with a higher dose per day and pick up 2 kits. Would 5 on 2 off still be the recommended schedule? I remember Hogg mentioning this, but, I can't seem to find the thread again.

 

[da game]

Thanks. I'll go with a higher dose per day and pick up 2 kits. Would 5 on 2 off still be the recommended schedule? I remember Hogg mentioning this, but, I can't seem to find the thread again.

Thats fine bro. You should make some good gains.

 

[RxMan]

I read all of these GH threads and I see many mentioning that they totally changed their bodies. I could always run another cycle or tweak the diet more. I am curious about this complete change that remains almost permanent.

 

[RxMan]

bump

 

[AnabolicAnimal]

though i have no personal gh experice it does seem that most would suggest that running it for under 6months isn't worth it. the longer your on the better seems to be the running theme.

 

[mikey1]

i dont agree iwth that, ive been on for 3 months and had great results, the longer your on the better is correct but you dont need 6 months for results

 

[scrappy]

i dont agree iwth that, ive been on for 3 months and had great results, the longer your on the better is correct but you dont need 6 months for results

yeah longer is better but you can see results fast in some cases

 

[Strenght-Gains]

yeah longer is better but you can see results fast in some cases

I think GH and it's effects are a case by case bases. Some peolpe love it others hate it. I've been doing 3.3 IU ED and I am so lightheaded and weak that I am going to scrap the other 18 bottles I have. Even running insulin with it still left me feeling hypo

 

[RxMan]

My response to it does worry me a bit. That's a lot of money to throw around if you end up not being able to take it. Most people like their GH from a trusted place/source. Have you tried going lower? Even thoough most recommend higher doses, I did read of a guy having problems at 4iu and going down to 2iu and having no problems at all and still seeing results.

 

[MaxRep]

I think GH and it's effects are a case by case bases. Some peolpe love it others hate it. I've been doing 3.3 IU ED and I am so lightheaded and weak that I am going to scrap the other 18 bottles I have. Even running insulin with it still left me feeling hypo

Are you saying you're running insulin with it and you still feel hypo? As in; you thought the insulin would make you less hypo? I may be misreading what you're saying but it's the insulin that's making you hypo. And if you're feeling hypo, you're not eating right.

Generally the people who hate HGH, are the ones who don't know how to use it properly. Again, there's no reason to use it unless you 1. have a lot of extra money or 2. are no longer getting any results from AAS alone.

If number 2 doesn't apply to you, there is nothing you will see from the GH that couldn't come from proper diet, training and AAS. The problem is most people are looking for GH to be a magic, muscle building potion. The sad thing is most people honestly don't even know their training, eating and rest habits are what's holding them back and then they take something like GH and can't figure out why it didn't work.

MaxRep

 

[Strenght-Gains]

Are you saying you're running insulin with it and you still feel hypo? As in; you thought the insulin would make you less hypo? I may be misreading what you're saying but it's the insulin that's making you hypo. And if you're feeling hypo, you're not eating right.

Generally the people who hate HGH, are the ones who don't know how to use it properly. Again, there's no reason to use it unless you 1. have a lot of extra money or 2. are no longer getting any results from AAS alone.

If number 2 doesn't apply to you, there is nothing you will see from the GH that couldn't come from proper diet, training and AAS. The problem is most people are looking for GH to be a magic, muscle building potion. The sad thing is most people honestly don't even know their training, eating and rest habits are what's holding them back and then they take something like GH and can't figure out why it didn't work.

MaxRep

I may have confused hypo with hyper.I was under the impression that perhaps the GH was preventing the insulin from being used effectively. As for eating I eat every 2-3 hours. I am 6'1 and 290lbs. I am using the GH to strenghten connective tissue as I am a strongman athlete. I get my gear and advice from credible sources,however, none can give me an answer as to why I feel like shit when using GH. Hell 3.3IU ,what I use ED, is just a bit over 1mg a day. This is a theraputic dose given to seniors.

 

[MaxRep]

Strength, you described your symptoms as being "light headed and weak". That fits the description of being hypoglycemic or "hypo". Hypoglycemic means you have low blood sugar levels. Taking insulin causes blood glucose levels to crash, thereby causing the symptoms you describe. Randomly eating every 2-3 hours is of no benefit when taking GH and insulin.

Regarding your comment of: "I was under the impression that perhaps the GH was preventing the insulin from being used effectively. " I don't know how you could be under that impression. I strongly suggest you stop taking any insulin until you do some research on the subject.

No offense but your credible sources don't appear to be very credible when it comes to advising you on GH and insulin.

Good luck,
MaxRep

 

[GRANVILLE]

I read all of these GH threads and I see many mentioning that they totally changed their bodies. I could always run another cycle or tweak the diet more. I am curious about this complete change that remains almost permanent.

Heres the laymans guide to the science behind growth, and the reason each persons results are different, any growth and its bi-products circulating in the body is absorbed by all your organs and used for repair and replenishment, the fastest replacing cells are in the skin, hence most people see a dramatic improvement in skin condition within a few weeks. If you are older and your body is in more need of repair, then the growth will be utilised mainly for this function and fat loss and muscle increase will be further back the line, if you are young and have badly abused your body then the same is true...................................hence the people who are in peak condition will see the other benefits of growth far sooner, we have to realise growth and its bi-products are part of our bodily functions, and our own bodies will decide what to do with it, irrespective, hence for MOST people long term smaller dose useage of growth has a far more dramatic effect internally than short term high dose, although the effects take longer. Thats why its usually agreed that growth is for the long haul and although some people see results from a large dose for a short period, its only because they are more "mended" than the rest of us, in the wrong hands growth can be far more dangerous to you than any aas you are likely to take.

 

[Trenman]

Very good post about GH above.

 

[einstein1905]

Heres the laymans guide to the science behind growth, and the reason each persons results are different, any growth and its bi-products circulating in the body is absorbed by all your organs and used for repair and replenishment, the fastest replacing cells are in the skin, hence most people see a dramatic improvement in skin condition within a few weeks. If you are older and your body is in more need of repair, then the growth will be utilised mainly for this function and fat loss and muscle increase will be further back the line, if you are young and have badly abused your body then the same is true...................................hence the people who are in peak condition will see the other benefits of growth far sooner, we have to realise growth and its bi-products are part of our bodily functions, and our own bodies will decide what to do with it, irrespective, hence for MOST people long term smaller dose useage of growth has a far more dramatic effect internally than short term high dose, although the effects take longer. Thats why its usually agreed that growth is for the long haul and although some people see results from a large dose for a short period, its only because they are more "mended" than the rest of us, in the wrong hands growth can be far more dangerous to you than any aas you are likely to take.

I haven't seen any evidence to support, nor do I believe, that Gh is titrated by receptors on tissues deemed "most needy". Any kind of epithelial tissue is most frequently replenished (e.g. the epithelial lining of the intestines). I think the wax and wanes of plasma GH levels are more dependent on degradation of the actual peptide over time, in conjunction with the regulatory (negative feedback loop) effects of somatostatin on GH's release from the pituitary. It's not as though the GH receptors on various tissues will "occupy" all of the GH released per pulse, with the "neediest" tissues using more GH. Read up on all of the clinical studies of GH....groups of 60-80 yr old men administered GH daily for extended periods of time notice drastic changes in body composition.

Although the effects are bound to be individualistic, the reasons for this are more complex than it would even be worth going into (I don't claim to know them all either). The point is, people need to be aware that the results will be individualized and cater their use/dosage according to THEIR response, not that of someone else's.

 

[GRANVILLE]

I haven't seen any evidence to support, nor do I believe, that Gh is titrated by receptors on tissues deemed "most needy". Any kind of epithelial tissue is most frequently replenished (e.g. the epithelial lining of the intestines). I think the wax and wanes of plasma GH levels are more dependent on degradation of the actual peptide over time, in conjunction with the regulatory (negative feedback loop) effects of somatostatin on GH's release from the pituitary. It's not as though the GH receptors on various tissues will "occupy" all of the GH released per pulse, with the "neediest" tissues using more GH. Read up on all of the clinical studies of GH....groups of 60-80 yr old men administered GH daily for extended periods of time notice drastic changes in body composition.

Although the effects are bound to be individualistic, the reasons for this are more complex than it would even be worth going into (I don't claim to know them all either). The point is, people need to be aware that the results will be individualized and cater their use/dosage according to THEIR response, not that of someone else's.

I'm a research scientist and have been working on the effects of growth on the body of humans and animals for 7 years, a lot of what is discovered is not documented as it is part of ongoing studies, that are not for general release, what I have stated is the current status of the studies, you are entitled to your opinion, but accept there are probably others who may have a greater and proven knowledge of the facts, the above was a laymans overview as stated, the studies you are citing are based on small groups of men, we are also talking about external application of growth not what happens in the human body naturaly, i.e your mention of somatostatin which is a process involved in your own production not from external application, I think you have missinterpreted many of the facts, oh and for your information I am fully up to speed with all the published documation on growth, some of which was produced by the establishment who employ my skills