Hogg & GH Vets. Question about GH dose.

[GRANVILLE]

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

I will also state as fact, and this is part of documation due to be published in July this year, that when rats with damaged leg muscles are injected with isotope marked growth, 80% more is taken in by that muscle than in those rats with no muscle damage, once again this is fact not personal interpretation of semi-absorbed information

 

[einstein1905]

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

That was a bit arrogant, so I'll follow suit. I too am a research scientist. Somatostain IS upregulated as a result of exogenous administration of GH. Exogenous administration of GH increases plasma GH levels as well as, and more importantly, plasma GH levels, which will act on the negative feedback inhibition loop to upregulate somatostatin expression. It's clear just by your oversight of such a simple mechanism as this, you're not the learned GH researcher you claim to be. It's really not all that complicated. Yeah, damaged/trained muscle tissue expresses both GH AND IGF receptors at much higher levels than control tissue...that's not privy information. It's clear you have a general understanding of how GH works, above and beyond the "layperson", but that doesn't mean you can use some scientific buzzwords and put together a theory not supported by research.

Additionally, the studies I refer to use large sample numbers, 15-25 and sometimes more. They are widely available. They definitely all show the same trends. Being an established GH researcher, I'm sure you are well-read on these and have merely overlooked the huge body of literature that shows glaring trends in exogenous GH adminstration in groups of people of all ages.

 

[GRANVILLE]

That was a bit arrogant, so I'll follow suit. I too am a research scientist. Somatostain IS upregulated as a result of exogenous administration of GH. Exogenous administration of GH increases plasma GH levels as well as, and more importantly, plasma GH levels, which will act on the negative feedback inhibition loop to upregulate somatostatin expression. It's clear just by your oversight of such a simple mechanism as this, you're not the learned GH researcher you claim to be. It's really not all that complicated. Yeah, damaged/trained muscle tissue expresses both GH AND IGF receptors at much higher levels than control tissue...that's not privy information. It's clear you have a general understanding of how GH works, above and beyond the "layperson", but that doesn't mean you can use some scientific buzzwords and put together a theory not supported by research.

Additionally, the studies I refer to use large sample numbers, 15-25 and sometimes more. They are widely available. They definitely all show the same trends. Being an established GH researcher, I'm sure you are well-read on these and have merely overlooked the huge body of literature that shows glaring trends in exogenous GH adminstration in groups of people of all ages.

I'm not going to waste time arguing, non of what I have said is privvy material, if you really are a research scientist you will know that a lot of published material is released before complete to get the jump on the opposition, you have just proved my point by agreeing that damaged/trained muscle tissue expresses both gh and igf receptors at much higher level than control tissue, hence a reduction in the available substance for other uses..................this was my laymans guide point above, which thank you you have just confirmed. I totaly dissagree that a group of 15 or maybe more men is a proven fact for anything, let alone as a justification to get a paper published, if you are a scientist you will have to agree, all the information you cite is already outdated, work on the effects of growth administration is always ongoing as it is still a VERY poorly understood subject, and very subjective, I really hope you don't believe half of the published information available alot of which is cobbled together to benefit drugs companies, check out who put the information together/who funded the studies you cite. I am a research scientist and if you are also yourself you will know who I am, this is really not worth the time to continue further, I have no reason to say I am something I'm not, I have absolutely no reason to, and my information is todays information, not last decades

 

[Trenman]

Damn it, I hate it when our resident nerds start arguing. They talk all fancy with these big words and stuff. The main reason why GRANVILLE described everything in layman's terms is because of guys like me, so I too can understand.

 

[j martini]

Can anyone tell me if the gains experienced from growth hormone are permanent if so it might be something i bwould consider doing in a few years for like 9 months straight but i dont think i could afford it permanent

 

[einstein1905]

I'm not going to waste time arguing, non of what I have said is privvy material, if you really are a research scientist you will know that a lot of published material is released before complete to get the jump on the opposition, you have just proved my point by agreeing that damaged/trained muscle tissue expresses both gh and igf receptors at much higher level than control tissue, hence a reduction in the available substance for other uses..................this was my laymans guide point above, which thank you you have just confirmed. I totaly dissagree that a group of 15 or maybe more men is a proven fact for anything, let alone as a justification to get a paper published, if you are a scientist you will have to agree, all the information you cite is already outdated, work on the effects of growth administration is always ongoing as it is still a VERY poorly understood subject, and very subjective, I really hope you don't believe half of the published information available alot of which is cobbled together to benefit drugs companies, check out who put the information together/who funded the studies you cite. I am a research scientist and if you are also yourself you will know who I am, this is really not worth the time to continue further, I have no reason to say I am something I'm not, I have absolutely no reason to, and my information is todays information, not last decades

This has got to be a joke, right? The epitome of hypocrisy would be you claiming the information I "cite", which I didn't BTW, is last decade's. I cited no information or studies. I did refer to well known facts. Mind-numbingly simple facts, for anyone in the field or anything distantly related. My point by bring up the fact that damaged tissue expresses more GH and IGF receptors was to give you some credit for your poorly thrown together initial post. Stating that IF I were a research scientist, I would know who you are......is just plain stupid.....In what way have you identified yourself other than poorly explaining some simple science? The info I refer to is as current as it gets. Human studies of 15 are a very large sample number in most cases! Murine studies usually include no more than 10 per experimental group (6 is most common). Several studies of n=15 that all echo the same obvious trends clearly indicate what's going on. It doesn't matter if the nobel winners in your underground, yet paradoxically, highly renowned lab agree with established science or not. I can't stop laughing thinking about you referring to the simple GH effector pathway as something archaic. It's fine if you don't know some things, but just accept that and change it. Feigning expertise in some area where it's obvious you aren't exactly clear on is in no way noble,

 

[einstein1905]

Damn it, I hate it when our resident nerds start arguing. They talk all fancy with these big words and stuff. The main reason why GRANVILLE described everything in layman's terms is because of guys like me, so I too can understand.

I can appreciate that, but when the info isn't exactly acurate (simplified or not), it doesn't help anyone.

 

[GRANVILLE]

Can anyone tell me if the gains experienced from growth hormone are permanent if so it might be something i bwould consider doing in a few years for like 9 months straight but i dont think i could afford it permanent

Wasn't going to make any more posts on this subject, but yes gains from growth are permanent, in basic terms growth increases the number of cells/muscle tissue rather than increasing cell/muscle size, so in theory you are then in a position to then go on and increase the size of the extra muscle cells you have produced

 

[einstein1905]

Can anyone tell me if the gains experienced from growth hormone are permanent if so it might be something i bwould consider doing in a few years for like 9 months straight but i dont think i could afford it permanent

Permanent wouldn't be accurate, but long-lived gains they are. As you get older, inevitably you'll lose muscle mass. The gains from Gh result from, predominantly, the increased hepatic-originating IGF-1 and also from GH binding GH receptors on muscle, causing an upregulation of intramusclular IGF-1 (IGF-1Ea for Glanville). The IGF-1 within muscle recruits satellite cells to mature into mature muscle cells (simplified). Increased muscle cells have obvious benefits, which I don't need to state.
Old school thinking is that the hepatic IGF-1 is what causes the anabolic effects, but recent research suggests that the IGF-1 upregulated and expresed in muscle itself is the primary effector of muscle anabolism. GH also has direct effects on muscle as well as connective tissue, among a variety of other cell types, but the GH increasing IGF-1 is what most impacts anabolism.

 

[GRANVILLE]

This has got to be a joke, right? The epitome of hypocrisy would be you claiming the information I "cite", which I didn't BTW, is last decade's. I cited no information or studies. I did refer to well known facts. Mind-numbingly simple facts, for anyone in the field or anything distantly related. My point by bring up the fact that damaged tissue expresses more GH and IGF receptors was to give you some credit for your poorly thrown together initial post. Stating that IF I were a research scientist, I would know who you are......is just plain stupid.....In what way have you identified yourself other than poorly explaining some simple science? The info I refer to is as current as it gets. Human studies of 15 are a very large sample number in most cases! Murine studies usually include no more than 10 per experimental group (6 is most common). Several studies of n=15 that all echo the same obvious trends clearly indicate what's going on. It doesn't matter if the nobel winners in your underground, yet paradoxically, highly renowned lab agree with established science or not. I can't stop laughing thinking about you referring to the simple GH effector pathway as something archaic. It's fine if you don't know some things, but just accept that and change it. Feigning expertise in some area where it's obvious you aren't exactly clear on is in no way noble,

I wasn't going to waste time and respond, but I've come into work to find several e-mails asking me to, so here goes,

1) you cant even get my name right

2) even newbies know that if you stick your butt with test your own production wil be compromised, but since that is only a small amount overall its not worth considering, the same applies to any external supply of hormone including growth, hence the theory that you quote regarding somatostatin, as above this is negligable in the total process, infact if you had checked 3 years ago two groups of males were subjected to 3ius of growth per day for 3 months, the control group were also administered with a somatostatin (proven somastatin inhibitor, refer parr et al) inhibitor and the results of the 2 groups compared, guess what, no discernible difference was noted in the results............................out of the window "your" somatostatin loop theory.

3) of all the documented evidence of small groups (i.e under 100) of geriatrics being treated with growth, there were NO CONTROL GROUPS to qualify the effects, and all of them were indirectly funded by drugs companies. If I was to go down to the local old folks home and give 15 of them an eca and low dianabol cycle for several months, guess what they would all put on lean body mass, decrease fat and have improved sex drives, together with a renewed excitement for life because of their added stimulant, and thats just what happened with the geriatrics you mention, give any old person a good stimulant and of course they are going to feel good because of their renewed energy, that doesn't mean I feel growth administration is inferior, far from it, just proving that there wasn't even a decent control to compare it with. If you follow on the reports, the growth was stopped after 6 months as many of the participants developed carpal tunnel..............................now you know how much of the stuff was pumped into those poor old folks.

4) I based my answer on MY OWN PERSONAL RESEARCH not recycled often biased publication, I assume you saw the mountains of "EVIDENCE" proving the 45 minute and weapons of mass destruction theory, I assume since it was published by an "unbiased" source you've taken all that on board as well

5) There are 1000's of people asking why they aren't seeing any results from taking growth, compared to the few who have rapid results, alot of those seeing rapid results are seeing the synergy between growth and aas, I stand by my explanation of the reason this is happening until it is disproved by fact not fiction, just to compound it, those that do stay on growth for the long haul do suddenly start seeing alot of fat loss etc. after many months, this being the time that it has taken for the body to have carried out its major repair work.

6) this is neither the place, nor am I going to spend more time arguing with a junior out of date pages missing text book, go and do some of your own research, you started this arguement, I'm not going to bother to respond to any more of your mostly unfounded comments, based on papers by people seeking publicity

 

[einstein1905]

I wasn't going to waste time and respond, but I've come into work to find several e-mails asking me to, so here goes,

1) you cant even get my name right

2) even newbies know that if you stick your butt with test your own production wil be compromised, but since that is only a small amount overall its not worth considering, the same applies to any external supply of hormone including growth, hence the theory that you quote regarding somatostatin, as above this is negligable in the total process, infact if you had checked 3 years ago two groups of males were subjected to 3ius of growth per day for 3 months, the control group were also administered with a somatostatin (proven somastatin inhibitor, refer parr et al) inhibitor and the results of the 2 groups compared, guess what, no discernible difference was noted in the results............................out of the window "your" somatostatin loop theory.

3) of all the documented evidence of small groups (i.e under 100) of geriatrics being treated with growth, there were NO CONTROL GROUPS to qualify the effects, and all of them were indirectly funded by drugs companies. If I was to go down to the local old folks home and give 15 of them an eca and low dianabol cycle for several months, guess what they would all put on lean body mass, decrease fat and have improved sex drives, together with a renewed excitement for life because of their added stimulant, and thats just what happened with the geriatrics you mention, give any old person a good stimulant and of course they are going to feel good because of their renewed energy, that doesn't mean I feel growth administration is inferior, far from it, just proving that there wasn't even a decent control to compare it with. If you follow on the reports, the growth was stopped after 6 months as many of the participants developed carpal tunnel..............................now you know how much of the stuff was pumped into those poor old folks.

4) I based my answer on MY OWN PERSONAL RESEARCH not recycled often biased publication, I assume you saw the mountains of "EVIDENCE" proving the 45 minute and weapons of mass destruction theory, I assume since it was published by an "unbiased" source you've taken all that on board as well

5) There are 1000's of people asking why they aren't seeing any results from taking growth, compared to the few who have rapid results, alot of those seeing rapid results are seeing the synergy between growth and aas, I stand by my explanation of the reason this is happening until it is disproved by fact not fiction, just to compound it, those that do stay on growth for the long haul do suddenly start seeing alot of fat loss etc. after many months, this being the time that it has taken for the body to have carried out its major repair work.

6) this is neither the place, nor am I going to spend more time arguing with a junior out of date pages missing text book, go and do some of your own research, you started this arguement, I'm not going to bother to respond to any more of your mostly unfounded comments, based on papers by people seeking publicity

I'm not psychic, but I saw this coming. I hope you aren't too tired though. I knew that since you were "done" responding yesterday, that this meant you would be up late reading up and getting somewhat current on GH studies. You found one obscure publication to contradict the ubiquitously accepted dogma of GHRH/GH/somatostatin interplay and pulsatile release. I'd love to hear your theory on why GH release is pulsatile if not related to somatostatin.
I love the fact that you combed "all": the documented clinical GH studies. Ummmm, you forgot the majority of them. There are numerous studies using control/placebo groups.

I love how all of the etablished theory of mechanism for GH is on the verge of being disproved by your "not quite yet ready to be published" data.

I'm not going to cite any or all of the studies that show time and time again how GH is released and regulated. You hold on to your beliefs and to your one paper supporting them....I'm sure he's right and everyone else is wrong.

Hell, I'll be kind read "growth hormone" by Bengsston. That book is just a compilation of many clinical long-term GH trials. That's among one of the many GH texts you should read.

private company-funded research still has to be peer reviewed before publication....by the way, good luck with that on your "unique" results.

 

[einstein1905]

2) even newbies know that if you stick your butt with test your own production wil be compromised, but since that is only a small amount overall its not worth considering, the same applies to any external supply of hormone including growth, hence the theory that you quote regarding somatostatin, as above this is negligable in the total process

Comparing the negative feedback loop of test to that of GH is just naive.
When taking exogenous test, the dosages are so much higher, proportionally, to our own exogenous free test levels than the doses of exogenous GH we take. Most take about 4 IUs per day in 2 shots, the 2nd shot not being near bedtime so as to still benefit from the GH release during sleep. 1iu of GH release during sleep is not rare. So, people are getting the benefits of the exogenous GH, which is more than likely inhibiting endogenous release (via somatostain....yes, I said it again), and they are also still getting the GH release at night if their 2nd shot isn't roughly 3 hours or closer to bedtime, to allow the somatostatin levels to decline, which were elevated in response to your last GH shot of the day.

Instead of having to keep trying to coverup your oversights or just plain misinformation, just sit back and read up. No one's impressed. I'm sure your email box was full of people begging you to respond to this post to clear things up. All that patting yourself on the back is a sure rotator cuff injury just waiting to happen. Then you'll be wanting to take GH to speed up the recovery....vicious cycle.