MALDI-TOF-MS/HPLC-UV-VIS rHGH results

[ProfessorX]

Prof - X: buck found a gem last night. I believe it was you(may have been rpbb or both) that posted a link to a Dr. Elmer Cranton to back up some of your points against serum testing. Well here is what that same doctor has to say about IGF-1 testing, it seems as if he is saying some of the same things that I have been saying. I have copied and pasted it, but here is the link as well since the layout of the tables is messed up when I paste it here; so its much easier to read at the link. Anyway, figured you would enjoy it.

Interpretation of IGF-1 Lab Tests, and IGF-1 and prostate cancer



Welcome to Ellis Toussier-Ades Bigio-Antebi's


IGF-1 Interpretation
and

IGF-1 Laboratory Tests

and

Correlation Between IGF-1 and Prostate Cancer



and

Dr. Cranton Replies to Questions Re: rHGH Growth Hormone

by


Elmer Cranton, M.D.
The following was posted by Dr. Elmer Cranton on the Rejuvenation newsgroup, which is for persons taking human growth hormone (HGH) by sub-cutaneous injection, or persons interested in following the discussion. I copy these posts here with Dr. Cranton's permission, because of their value for others to read. -Ellis Toussier

From Elmer Cranton, M.D.
Re: IGF-1 interpretation

The following must be considered when relying on IGF-1 reports:

1. I have found that laboratories are not always accurate in testing IGF-1 (sometimes called somatomedin-C).Different methods are used by different labs and the results are not always comparable. It is a mistake to believe that clinical laboratory reports are always reliable. IGF-1 is a very specialized test. Unless a lab is large enough to have a substantial volume for that special test, calibration and standardization may not be accurate. I have found that Smith Kline Lab, LabCorp Lab, and King James OmegaTech Lab are the most reliable. That doesn't mean that others may not also be good. But be suspicious of reports if they don't make sense clinically.

2. IGF-1 is not HGH It is a metabolic breakdown product made from HGH by the liver. IGF-1 has some hormone activity by itself but HGH in its pure form has much broader activity. Because HGH remains in the blood for only a few minutes before attaching to cell receptors, IGF-1 is used as an easily obtained but partial indicator. IGF-1 stays in the blood for a day or more. IGF-1 seems to be reliable as a guideline for internal pituitary production, which is pulsitile over many hours. But people differ widely in the amount of IGF-1 produced from HGH by injection. I have seen patients with only mild increases in IGF-1 from injected HGH respond quite dramatically, out of proportion to IGF-1 figures.

3. The fact is that1 unit of HGH equals the total daily pituitary production for a healthy young adult. Therefore one unit of HGH daily is a total replacement dose in old age, regardless of the IGF-1 followup. It is possible that more of the HGH taken by injection (once or at most twice daily) attaches to cells receptors in the body, perhaps more effective ones, and that less goes to the liver to be broken down to IGF-1.

4. I do not do routine follow-up IGF-1 blood tests in my patients for the above reasons. Those measurements have not correlated with replacement doses and vary widely from person to person. There is a wide variation in how much IGF-1 increases from person to person. This seems to have no significance to long-term benefit seen in my clinical practice.

THE DEGREE OF INCREASE IN IGF-1 DOES NOT SEEM TO CORRELATE WITH CLINICAL BENEFIT. BUT THE LEVEL OF BASELINE IGF-1, BEFORE INJECTIONS BEGIN, AS A PRODUCT OF SLOW AND CONTINUOUS PITUITARY RELEASE, DOES SEEM TO BE A RELIABLE INDICATOR OF HOW DEFICIENT A PERSON IS TO BEGIN WITH.

5. I know that for myself personally, each unit of HGH by injection raises my IGF-1 by 100 nanograms/milliliter (ng/ml). That is my own consistent measurement if the HGH is real and not counterfeit. Someone else may have a different reading, more or less, with no significance to benefit. I am 67 years old and my baseline IGF-1 without replacement is approximately 100. Every time I get a new lot number of HGH for my patients I take one unit daily for one week and test my IGF-1. It should be about 200. I then take 2 units daily for several days and test again. It should be about 300.

That is the only way I can be sure of getting the real thing. Over the past 2 years I have twice received counterfeit HGH, properly labeled and otherwise indistinguishable from the real thing. When I tested my IGF-1, it remained at baseline.

I now use Lilly Humatrope in my practice. It has a foreign label but is made in France in the same factory as the USA product. It has consistently been the best in my own testing. IGF-1 measurements will also vary by 10% to 20% from day to day normally. And if a single blood specimen is split into two test tubes and sent to the same laboratory, the results may differ by 20%. The test method is only that accurate. Variations between different labs may be even greater. That fact must be considered in interpretation.

6. HGH replacement therapy means replacement therapy for deficiency with aging. Young people produce plenty of their own and young adults also respond much more briskly to precursors (various amino acids). When reading claims for precursors of any type, it is necessary to know if IGF-1 was deficient to begin with. I would ask to see results for a series of 10 patients over 70 years old (whose IGF-1 will be around 100, plus or minus) and then get before and after readings. They must be 10 sequential patients, not the best 10 responders out of 100, as may be deceptively done. On the average I have only seen about 25% increase of IGF-1 with amino acids in such patients. And to get that increase it is necessary to have an empty stomach, no food for several hours before and 2 hours after taking that product. Food competes with the amino acids for absorption. It is necessary for amino acids to go in fast without interference from other foods to boost HGH release. Young people who do not need HGH and who will not benefit from more will increase much more with the amino acids than old people who really need it.

7. It is well known that HGH releasers (peptides, amino acids, releasing hormone, etc.) lose there effect over time. The pituitary becomes tolerant to them and releases less and less HGH over several months. They work best short term, best in young people who don't need the benefit and lose their effect with time.

Elmer M. Cranton, M.D.

> From: "Dale R. & Karen A. Hersh"
> Dear Dr. Cranton,
> Thank you so much for you information, but I do have one question reference point 5: Do you regularly use rHGH and if you don't why? -- And if you do -- do you cycle it?

I regularly take one to two units of rHGH daily, every day. I've done that for 3 years now with good results. I do not cycle it.

Cycling can save money and get more bang for the buck, but has reduced overall benefit.

E M Cranton, MD

From: "Elmer Cranton, M.D."

Subject: IGF-1 Laboratory Tests

I did a comparison study of IGF-1 test results by sending split specimens to several large, very reputable reference laboratories.

I took a single blood specimen, I split it into two tubes and sent them to two different laboratories. Theoretically the results should have been the same. There was a correlation but also large differences.

The results follow:

The two test results are on the same, identical blood specimens.

The laboratories are large, highly reputable, fully licensed labs, approved, and regularly inspected by the government. This cost me some money as each test cost more than $60. But I felt it was necessary to correctly interpret my patients' results.

When you see IGF-1 figures used in marketing, you should keep the below results in mind. Any such figures mean nothing unless the standard deviation of the method used is known and enough tests are done to get a statistically significant difference. A you can see, differences of 25% to 50% are within the error of the method and can be quite meaningless.

It is also easy for a marketer to select the most favorable numbers and discard those that do not favor a product. How can one be sure this is not done? Unless the research is done independently, by a researcher with nothing to gain or lose form the results, such studies are always suspect in my mind. If a marketing company pays for research, will the researcher bite the hand that feeds him/her???

IGF-1 on same specimen, ng/ml



LAB A

LAB B

140

186

236

301

97

124

124

125

98

131

215

284

250

406

97

124

126

169

67

89

180

331

200

379

66

133

261

143

424

546

103

159

175

215

So I repeated the test with another two labs, to see if it was just the above two labs or a consistent problem.








LAB C

LAB D

177

174

165

84

255

381

222

208

57

24

132

60

133

31

I am now repeating this test by sending samples of the same blood to the same lab on different weeks to see the differences in results using the same lab both times.

So far the results are similar to the above, although the differences are less.

Elmer M. Cranton, M.D.




Dale comments on the above results:
From: "Dale R. & Karen A. Hersh"
Subject: Re: IGF-1 Laboratory Tests
At first I looked at this as though these results show that testing IGF-1 was probably useless and this bothered me. Then I started looking at them a little closer and saw quite a bit of consistency. Lab B was mostly higher than A and when I put a calculator to the results, 10 of the split samples differ the same ratio .77 +/- .03

4 more had similar ratios, but at .55

Actually, these are pretty consistent results. It seems like it's more a question of calibration (if there is such a thing for IGF) or even who ran the test.

Depending on what days these results were run, there is more consistency than appears to be the case at first glance... A few were completely off and I can't explain that without more information. So using the same lab may be the answer if one is going to get their IGF tested.

I couldn't see any correlation between C and D.


Correlation of IGF-1 and Prostate Cancer
A good study has shown that a large number of elderly male patients taking HGH over a long time had no increase in prostate cancer.

That rumor got started when it was reported that elderly men with the lowest quintile of IGF- (lowest fifth of HGH) had less cancer than men with the highest 20% (highest fifth). There was no linear correlation of IGF-1 and prostate cancer in the study. They only reported less cancer in the most deficient of an elderly population.

What that report did not point out was that the lowest fifth were so deficient that all tissues of the body were inhibited in growth, healing and maintenance-- healthy as well as cancerous. It is quite a different thing to state that deficiency of essential hormones slows the growth of cancer (and everything else including a healthy body) and, on the other hand, trying to prove that hormones cause cancer. Life and health cannot progress without hormones. Cancer cannot progress without a living body to support its growth. It is quite predictable that if old people are dying from end stage deficiencies, they might have less cancer.

If all of the facts were reported, it is my opinion that the most senile and debilitated of the group would also have been those in the lowest 20% of IGF-1. But that data was not presented.

If HGH is only replaced to an average level present in the body for 30 years, from age 20 to age 50, and if it was safe during that 30 year period, and if it was essential to health during those 30 years, what is the harm in replacing it after age 50 when it becomes deficient? If it's dangerous, why does it not cause problems in the earlier 30 years when it is normally present in the same levels or higher from pituitary production? (Note: Excessively high doses of hormones can be harmful, I am referring here only to normal replacement doses).

E M CRANTON, MD





For more information on Dr. Elmer Cranton's EDTA Chelation Therapy or growth hormone replacement therapy, go to:www.drcranton.com.

Dr. Cranton's Replies Answers Questions referring to Growth Hormone (rHGH) Replacement Therapy!

Dr. Cranton Re: Growth Hormone Replacement



This and other posts by Dr. Cranton to the Rejuvenation board are found in Digest No. 26, 27, and 28, which are found in the Archives of the
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Rejuvenation









________________________________




I invite you to http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Rejuvenation... Many say it is the best anti-aging forum on the internet. Rejuvenation has more than 2000 anti-aging doctors and patients subscribed. There are more than 10,000 questions referring to the use of authentic injectible growth hormone and other anti-aging therapies in the Archives of Rejuvenation, most of them with answers annotated on the post.








For comments about this page, please write to:

editor@rajeun.net
Ellis Toussier


Thanks for your visit

Exactly brutha. I'm glad you're finally realizing that Blood Serum cannot give you the results you are looking for.

GH Serums should only be used to confirm GH Product is bunk or contains a GH Protein

Same as using blood serum to determine if my Test P contains 76.5mg and not 100mgs

Then factor in that GH is a Biosimilar and not a "Generic"

The testing I did mimicking the Bioequivalence test used:

IGF1
IGFBP3
NEFA

The blood work was done after I had the GH tested:

Protein Characterization
Protein Sequencing/Mapping

I put a lot of time into the test

It's hard to do real testing such as this when there is a new color top every week

The standard is in today for the US Lab.

I'll have some new testing results soon

 

[muscle96ss]

Exactly brutha. I'm glad you're finally realizing that Blood Serum cannot give you the results you are looking for.

GH Serums should only be used to confirm GH Product is bunk or contains a GH Protein

Same as using blood serum to determine if my Test P contains 76.5mg and not 100mgs

Then factor in that GH is a Biosimilar and not a "Generic"

The testing I did mimicking the Bioequivalence test used:

IGF1
IGFBP3
NEFA

The blood work was done after I had the GH tested:

Protein Characterization
Protein Sequencing/Mapping

I put a lot of time into the test

It's hard to do real testing such as this when there is a new color top every week

The standard is in today for the US Lab.

I'll have some new testing results soon

For the, Protein Characterization and Protein Sequencing/Mapping, how are you getting those done as Simec does not do those in house? Are you using the lab we talked about the other day or some other lab?

 

[ProfessorX]

For the, Protein Characterization and Protein Sequencing/Mapping, how are you getting those done as Simec does not do those in house? Are you using the lab we talked about the other day or some other lab?

SIMEC will give you a basic assay:

Indentify (Somatropin/not somatropin)

Mg/IU

Purity %

Which is good. I think that's all most want to see anyway

I posted a test result (generic) a couple pages back of the other lab
(Characterization, Sequence, etc)

At the time they were not set up to do concentration (mg)

It'll be interesting. I've got a black top (pinwheel) at SIMEC and will have a black top (pinwheel) at this lab

It'll be a cool comparison along with blood work

 

[ProfessorX]

So as you stated it could be related to the person.

Also related to the product

Can also cause issues when switching from "Generic" to Pharma (Innovator)

This is a good link explaining the testing done before any bioequivalence (Blood Work / IGF1 and IGFBP3) testing is done:

Mass spectrometric analysis of innovator, counterfeit, and follow-on recombinant human growth hormone - Jiang - 2009 - Biotechnology Progress - Wiley Online Library

At the end of the study (which is waaaaay over my brain capacity) it states:


These differences (modifications) in the rhGH may or may not cause any safety and efficacy concerns. The extensive animal and human clinical studies, such as for the innovator and follow-on products, certainly alleviated these concerns.5 We believed that these large differences (to which patients will be exposed) should require the animal and human clinical studies to address the concerns, regardless as to the origin either from different manufacturer's processes or from different lots produced by the same manufacturer. In conclusion, we have demonstrated that a powerful analytical tool as described here can allow one to extensively characterize and quantitate different versions of human growth hormone and with high degree of confidence and sensitivity to pinpoint the subtle and distinct differences due to non identical manufacturing and formulation procedures. We believe that the regulation of biosimilar drugs can be benefit from the detailed analysis of these products with such a powerful analytical technology as a valuable initial screen.

This was the type of testing/study I was trying follow

So, it's more complicated than one simple blood test (GH Serum, IGF1 as stated by Cranton) (injecting a vial and running to LabCorp)

What is inside the vial is what we are wanting to know

 

[ecdysone]

Good thread, shame it blossomed into 80 pages!

As a small contribution, from someone who knows a bit about LC/MS (actually more LC/MS/MS) is that many of you may have not considered normal lab errors in your thinking process.

For hormones and other lesser MW substances, ± 20% lab-to-lab precision is a "gold standard." However, such is rarely achievable unless all the labs are using the same reference standard, or at least an industry-equivalent one. For essentially proteomic assays were not all the participants may have access to the WHO standards (or equivalent), lab-to-lab differences of up to ±50% are not at all unexpected.

Simply stated: whereas a manufacturer might state his HGH as 9IU (thereby being +50% high) an independent lab might assay the same substance a 4.5 IU (-50%), yet the two are in reasonable agreement!

This is not rocket science, and it's highly questionable whether it matters if the vial is 4.5 or 9.0. More importantly at this MW, serious immuno-chemical adverse outcomes would be a real concern, so purity, not concentration is the real issue.

 

[ProfessorX]

I know absolutely nothing about how the testing is done

This is what was stated to me by the lab :

Determine quantity present in grams via HPLC-MS response of intact protein relative to calibration curve of Sigma somatropin standard Cat. no. S0947000 . Includes determination of intact mass of provided sample.

Sigma Cat. no. S0947000 - somatropin reference standard

HPLC-MS of known quantity Sigma Cat. no. S0947000 - somatropin reference standard to generate 5-point calibration curve

Fluorimetric assay /LC/MS/MS seemed to be inaccurate (from my previous testing)

Thoughts?

 

[muscle96ss]

Good thread, shame it blossomed into 80 pages!

As a small contribution, from someone who knows a bit about LC/MS (actually more LC/MS/MS) is that many of you may have not considered normal lab errors in your thinking process.

For hormones and other lesser MW substances, ± 20% lab-to-lab precision is a "gold standard." However, such is rarely achievable unless all the labs are using the same reference standard, or at least an industry-equivalent one. For essentially proteomic assays were not all the participants may have access to the WHO standards (or equivalent), lab-to-lab differences of up to ±50% are not at all unexpected.

Simply stated: whereas a manufacturer might state his HGH as 9IU (thereby being +50% high) an independent lab might assay the same substance a 4.5 IU (-50%), yet the two are in reasonable agreement!

This is not rocket science, and it's highly questionable whether it matters if the vial is 4.5 or 9.0. More importantly at this MW, serious immuno-chemical adverse outcomes would be a real concern, so purity, not concentration is the real issue.

As Prof X, I know nothing about lab testing methodology either. Simec uses HPLC(no MS). I asked them some basic questions via email and they said that their methods used are according to Ph. Eur. monograph 0952 and 0951. Their HPLC devices all are GMP-conform and they use a certified reference standard material, with the analyses performed under GMP-conditions. Does this mean anything to you in terms of telling you how good their procedure is? Are there otehr questions I should be asking them that would help better determine if their methodology is good?

 

[ProfessorX]

The European Pharmacopoeia (Pharmacopoeia Europaea, Ph. Eur.) is a pharmacopoeia that aims to provide common quality standards throughout Europe to control the quality of medicines and the substances used to manufacture them. It is a published collection of monographs that describe both the individual and general quality standards for ingredients, dosage forms and methods of analysis for medicines. These standards apply to medicines for both human and veterinary use.

This is what I had mentioned before and what ecdysone is referring to also

European Pharmcopoeia:
rhGh Related Proteins Test (6.0%)
rhGh Dimmer Related Substances of Higher Molecular Mass Test (4.0%)

SIMEC is using the same "Standard". Dr A had to order that from Sigma on some of the first GH testing I did back in 2014

But like I said, I know nuffn bout how the testing is done

The Lab Using LC/MS/MS is within the 90th percentile of all labs using the same testing method (CAP) College of American Pathology sends out random samples for analysis

I'm not sure what the "Gold Standard" is

 

[ecdysone]

Mass spectrometric analysis of innovator, counterfeit, and follow-on recombinant human growth hormone - Jiang - 2009 - Biotechnology Progress - Wiley Online Library

Really great article that quite elegantly points out the amazing differences between authentic, "bioequivalent" and "counterfeit" forms of HGH. The AA sequence in all the forms is the same, yet it's the degree of "defects" in individual AAs/chain cleavages that makes them potentially different proteins.

The take-away lesson is that a manufacturer will have to perform animal/human clinical studies on their product before it can be deemed as safe (non-immunogenic). A LC/MS/MS characterization of the HGH will only help a little since individual lots from the same manufacturer might differ significantly in "defects."

With regard to lab analysis, I think you both mentioned the important characteristics in choosing a good one: they be certified and they participate in a proficiency test (PT) program as part of their certification.

 

[Buck1973]

Just do this:

Make sure your IGF1 is back to natty (apprx 110)

Do an IGF1 Serum to show that

Do your GH Serum protocol the next day as you normally would....just add an IGF1 Serum

Just keep it simple

No need for "proof" or "documents", etc

Just your positive attitude and wanting to try something new is good enough for me

Ok Pro X,
testin is and was done.
Results No rise in IGF-1 levels .
I did 10 IU's IM Had the draw a little early @ 1:39 post inject. Did not get a elevation in IGF ......
So i took it further than what you suggested by doing 10 instead of 5 and did IM instead of Sq. which gets into the blood faster.
I am sure you will like to see the labs so I have them aval.

Peace

 

[ProfessorX]

Ok Pro X,
testin is and was done.
Results No rise in IGF-1 levels .
I did 10 IU's IM Had the draw a little early @ 1:39 post inject. Did not get a elevation in IGF ......
So i took it further than what you suggested by doing 10 instead of 5 and did IM instead of Sq. which gets into the blood faster.
I am sure you will like to see the labs so I have them aval.

Peace

I used Legit Pharma products for testing (blood work)

The 2 "Generics" I used for blood work were tested (extensive accredited lab test) before doing any blood work

I used 15IUs-10IUs-6IUs (legit pharm, tested "Generic")

The "correct protocol" (if there is one) is drawing blood 3.5 hrs after subq inject (same as GH Serum)

I was able to use 6IUs (correct mg) and test in 2hrs after subq (this was done by accident. I do not use "protocols" anymore for IGF1 testing - hence the 2hr)

So brutha, there really is no precise way (blood serum "fluctuates") (not sure why you chose 1.39) (I'm assuming if you used a Generic for blood work it was tested - Mg/IU - MS/MW and has <4% related proteins/substances)

The point of that testing (which elevates IGF1 with legit GH) was to show that "waiting 4 weeks for IGF1 to elevate is false. Which it is. These Generics sources were "pumping" up GH Serums as a way to show quality, strength, etc. IGF1 is the better indicator of Bioavailability. (Bioequivalence Testing between 2 GH products)

According to Clinical Studies, BioSimilars are tested first before any blood work is done

Good luck with your lab testing

 

[Buck1973]

I used Legit Pharma products for testing (blood work)

The 2 "Generics" I used for blood work were tested (extensive accredited lab test) before doing any blood work

I used 15IUs-10IUs-6IUs (legit pharm, tested "Generic")

The "correct protocol" (if there is one) is drawing blood 3.5 hrs after subq inject (same as GH Serum)

I was able to use 6IUs (correct mg) and test in 2hrs after subq (this was done by accident. I do not use "protocols" anymore for IGF1 testing - hence the 2hr)

So brutha, there really is no precise way (blood serum "fluctuates") (not sure why you chose 1.39) (I'm assuming if you used a Generic for blood work it was tested - Mg/IU - MS/MW and has <4% related proteins/substances)

The point of that testing (which elevates IGF1 with legit GH) was to show that "waiting 4 weeks for IGF1 to elevate is false. Which it is. These Generics sources were "pumping" up GH Serums as a way to show quality, strength, etc. IGF1 is the better indicator of Bioavailability. (Bioequivalence Testing between 2 GH products)

According to Clinical Studies, BioSimilars are tested first before any blood work is done

Good luck with your lab testing

Yes Sir to be correct Our discussion is on HGH being able to double IGF-1 scores in 2 hour after Sq. administration.
I set this up and agreed on what The testing would be. I went over what was talked about to prove YOUR point.
I was shooting for 2 hours post injection but came in a little early.
However I did double the talked about dose (5 vs. 10) and I did it IM which you must agree is faster into the blood.
Before this turns into HPLC are the best way to test HGH I care not to get into that discussion at this time But ahead we can discuss the Pros and cons of any testing and the limitations of each.
I will include at this time my labs for review;
The test product that I did I have no HPLC labs on only IGF-1 tests that show that this product elevates IGF-1 ( aprox. 100 igf-1 points Per 1 iu of product) so this is HGH or something that elevates IGF-1 levels just like HGH.
I have serums that show It elevates these as well and that I was on it at the time of draw ( Serum test and IGF-1 test were the same day same time....)
So if the argument is well my Product isnt HGh . Ya cant make it , I have to much paper on it saying otherwise.
I also have the study done, not by me but done in 1999 (ON Pharma HGH) and referer to and believed By Datbtrue, MY RESULTS MATCH THEIRS.
I have many others unrelated to my results that show the same.

The only thing I can see then is that you are unique or a anomaly since you have no studies or anyone else's results to back yours. Which i agree is a possibility but you cant then suggest that your results are the norm, or xpected, or repeatable..
I have include 2 baseline IGF-1 scores 6 days off 3.33 HGH and 11 days off HGH.
I have include IGF-1 test on 3.33 P/D of the same product. I have included the test that was done 1:39 mins after a 10 IU IM injection and a Serum test the same day same time. I have included the study I quote from and there results ON a Pharma HGH that shows the same results I have.
The Discussion was never that IGF-1 levels increase faster than what was thought.
And the study below does agree with that as well. If it was I agree and have results that show that its not necessary to be on 4-6 weeks to show saturation.
You know what are discussion was and I can pull quotes to that effect should memory be challenged.
I respect the testing you have done and look forward to further discussions with You.
As you can see I am not one to come to the table without Facts or tests to establish a opinion. I try to b open and unbiased to hear all.

I am the Treasurer of fund collections @ PM for the upcoming labs.
Anyone interested in contributing to the cause can contact me.

Peace
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what does a high dose of synthetic GH administered subcutaneously or intramuscularly (but not by IV) do to systemic levels of IGF-1?

To find out we must switch to a Japanese study which undertook such study.

In Pharmacokinetics and Metabolic Effects of High-Dose Growth Hormone Administration in Healthy Adult Men, Toshiaki Tanaka, et al., Endocrine Journal 1999, 46 (4), 605-612, fifteen healthy normal Japanese adult males aged from 20 to 27 years were administered various doses of recombinant GH (Norditropin). The GH was administered in a single dose at 9:00 a.m. after overnight fasting. Blood samples were collected at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 and 24 hours after the single injection.

The doses administered were: .075iu/kg; .15iu/kg and .30iu/kg
When the average weight of each test subject is accounted for the doses administered approximated: 5iu; 10iu and 20iu

In the higher dose category the study dosed every day for a week and collected blood samples each day.

IGF-1 levels were measured and can be graphed as follows:

From this graph a few quick things can clearly be understood:

• IGF-1 creation is a slow ongoing process that increases every day that you administer GH until it plateaus after a week. This should tell you that there is no fear that anything will specifically interfere with GH's ability to instigate IGF-1 creation. All of the timing protocols which fear that insulin or "this and that" will interfere with IGF-1 creation are baseless and such "write-ups" that call for timing are flawed.
• It is constant GH elevations that result in ever higher levels of systemic IGF-1 creation

What none of this tells us

This does not tell us what is happening locally. By locally I mean IGF-1 that is not made in the liver and circulated systemically. Local IGFs are made in small amounts and used exclusively in the tissue of their birth.

Local IGF-1 in muscle has been demonstrated to be responsible for muscle growth and only if muscle-made IGF-1 is lacking does systemic IGF-1 play a significant (although incomplete) role.

Local IGFs in muscle are increased by growth hormone and testosterone. It is conjectured that pulsatile GH (such as IV dosing) or the use of GHRH/GHRPs results in high levels of muscle IGFs w/o creating high levels of systemic circulating IGFs.

If this proves to be true then that would be an advantage because high systemic levels of IGF-1 are positively correlated w/ cancer and mortality.

 

[ProfessorX]

Yes Sir to be correct Our discussion is on HGH being able to double IGF-1 scores in 2 hour after Sq. administration.
I set this up and agreed on what The testing would be. I went over what was talked about to prove YOUR point.
I was shooting for 2 hours post injection but came in a little early.
However I did double the talked about dose (5 vs. 10) and I did it IM which you must agree is faster into the blood.
Before this turns into HPLC are the best way to test HGH I care not to get into that discussion at this time But ahead we can discuss the Pros and cons of any testing and the limitations of each.
I will include at this time my labs for review;
The test product that I did I have no HPLC labs on only IGF-1 tests that show that this product elevates IGF-1 ( aprox. 100 igf-1 points Per 1 iu of product) so this is HGH or something that elevates IGF-1 levels just like HGH.
I have serums that show It elevates these as well and that I was on it at the time of draw ( Serum test and IGF-1 test were the same day same time....)
So if the argument is well my Product isnt HGh . Ya cant make it , I have to much paper on it saying otherwise.
I also have the study done, not by me but done in 1999 (ON Pharma HGH) and referer to and believed By Datbtrue, MY RESULTS MATCH THEIRS.
I have many others unrelated to my results that show the same.

The only thing I can see then is that you are unique or a anomaly since you have no studies or anyone else's results to back yours. Which i agree is a possibility but you cant then suggest that your results are the norm, or xpected, or repeatable..
I have include 2 baseline IGF-1 scores 6 days off 3.33 HGH and 11 days off HGH.
I have include IGF-1 test on 3.33 P/D of the same product. I have included the test that was done 1:39 mins after a 10 IU IM injection and a Serum test the same day same time. I have included the study I quote from and there results ON a Pharma HGH that shows the same results I have.
The Discussion was never that IGF-1 levels increase faster than what was thought.
And the study below does agree with that as well. If it was I agree and have results that show that its not necessary to be on 4-6 weeks to show saturation.
You know what are discussion was and I can pull quotes to that effect should memory be challenged.
I respect the testing you have done and look forward to further discussions with You.
As you can see I am not one to come to the table without Facts or tests to establish a opinion. I try to b open and unbiased to hear all.

I am the Treasurer of fund collections @ PM for the upcoming labs.
Anyone interested in contributing to the cause can contact me.

Peace
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what does a high dose of synthetic GH administered subcutaneously or intramuscularly (but not by IV) do to systemic levels of IGF-1?

To find out we must switch to a Japanese study which undertook such study.

In Pharmacokinetics and Metabolic Effects of High-Dose Growth Hormone Administration in Healthy Adult Men, Toshiaki Tanaka, et al., Endocrine Journal 1999, 46 (4), 605-612, fifteen healthy normal Japanese adult males aged from 20 to 27 years were administered various doses of recombinant GH (Norditropin). The GH was administered in a single dose at 9:00 a.m. after overnight fasting. Blood samples were collected at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 and 24 hours after the single injection.

The doses administered were: .075iu/kg; .15iu/kg and .30iu/kg
When the average weight of each test subject is accounted for the doses administered approximated: 5iu; 10iu and 20iu

In the higher dose category the study dosed every day for a week and collected blood samples each day.

IGF-1 levels were measured and can be graphed as follows:

From this graph a few quick things can clearly be understood:

• IGF-1 creation is a slow ongoing process that increases every day that you administer GH until it plateaus after a week. This should tell you that there is no fear that anything will specifically interfere with GH's ability to instigate IGF-1 creation. All of the timing protocols which fear that insulin or "this and that" will interfere with IGF-1 creation are baseless and such "write-ups" that call for timing are flawed.
• It is constant GH elevations that result in ever higher levels of systemic IGF-1 creation

What none of this tells us

This does not tell us what is happening locally. By locally I mean IGF-1 that is not made in the liver and circulated systemically. Local IGFs are made in small amounts and used exclusively in the tissue of their birth.

Local IGF-1 in muscle has been demonstrated to be responsible for muscle growth and only if muscle-made IGF-1 is lacking does systemic IGF-1 play a significant (although incomplete) role.

Local IGFs in muscle are increased by growth hormone and testosterone. It is conjectured that pulsatile GH (such as IV dosing) or the use of GHRH/GHRPs results in high levels of muscle IGFs w/o creating high levels of systemic circulating IGFs.

If this proves to be true then that would be an advantage because high systemic levels of IGF-1 are positively correlated w/ cancer and mortality.

(This was done with 6IUs SubQ)
(I've replicated this numerous times....a generic source did the same. It's not a "fluke")

Good luck with your testing brutha. Keep us posted.

 

[ProfessorX]

Since you are a member at eRoids....feel free to PM Matt from GT. He can share with you similar blood work results. Because of all the testing (Lab/Blood Work) we've done.....IGF1 is more of the focus and GH Serums are only used to show if the kit being tested is bunk or not.

 

[Buck1973]

View attachment 34213 View attachment 34214 View attachment 34215
(This was done with 6IUs SubQ)
(I've replicated this numerous times....a generic source did the same. It's not a "fluke")

Good luck with your testing brutha. Keep us posted.

I see your lab tests 137 and 260 I also noticed the draw is 27 hours 7 mins. apart...
Which corresponds with my graph @ 24 hours the Big does almost doubles IGF-1 scores...
So if your claim is that scores can double in 24 hours , I am with ya Brotha and studys can corroborate this.
Not sure what the other graphs you posted are suppose to represent.
Please review the Graph I posted , I think you will agree your tests that you posted fit right in there....
Peace

 

[ProfessorX]

Brutha....the testing was a baseline (natty) one day.....then IGF1 after 6Ius subQ inject the next day....it was approx 2-3 hours "ish" before blood draw (I honestly don't remember the exact time on this result as I've done a few like this)

Again....these are real/legit testing done to show Generic sources that their GH Testing Protocols are flawed (which they are) (they were getting too crazy with all those GH Serums) (Matt from GT has similar test results also -3+ Hr)

So that's it. Looks like we should have GH Results coming in starting next week. Feel free to login and check them out.

 

[Buck1973]

Since you are a member at eRoids....feel free to PM Matt from GT. He can share with you similar blood work results. Because of all the testing (Lab/Blood Work) we've done.....IGF1 is more of the focus and GH Serums are only used to show if the kit being tested is bunk or not.

I have looked there and did not find much I will return and review again. I am always open to advance my understandin.
Just keep our discussion in mind we are not speakin at this time AT all about Serum tests...
We are talking about time IGF-1 elevations.
Looks like 12 hours things start to pick up and a week in or so full saturation is achieved @ 20 IU's. I think it may take longer than 7 days on the bigger doses >10iu's,
But that is my Opinion only based on very little...

 

[ProfessorX]

I have looked there and did not find much I will return and review again. I am always open to advance my understandin.
Just keep our discussion in mind we are not speakin at this time AT all about Serum tests...
We are talking about time IGF-1 elevations.
Looks like 12 hours things start to pick up and a week in or so full saturation is achieved @ 20 IU's. I think it may take longer than 7 days on the bigger doses >10iu's,
But that is my Opinion only based on very little...View attachment 34221

I don't think Matt has them posted.
Might be on his site
But you can PM him (tell him HR sent ya)

He did 6IU subQ inject with Blood Draw 3HRs ish (elevated IGF1)

 

[Buck1973]

Brutha....the testing was a baseline (natty) one day.....then IGF1 after 6Ius subQ inject the next day....it was approx 2-3 hours "ish" before blood draw (I honestly don't remember the exact time on this result as I've done a few like this)

Again....these are real/legit testing done to show Generic sources that their GH Testing Protocols are flawed (which they are) (they were getting too crazy with all those GH Serums) (Matt from GT has similar test results also -3+ Hr)

So that's it. Looks like we should have GH Results coming in starting next week. Feel free to login and check them out.

Your tests are timestamped the time of the draw. and as I say they are 27 hours 7 mins. so the time of injection is somewhere between 27 hours 7 mins. and 0 thats all we can tell by that. If you say 2-3 hours and honestly don't remember then you will have to admit you have to take worse case scenario 27:07 or before....
I look forward to see further results...

Peace

 

[ProfessorX]

Your tests are timestamped the time of the draw. and as I say they are 27 hours 7 mins. so the time of injection is somewhere between 27 hours 7 mins. and 0 thats all we can tell by that. If you say 2-3 hours and honestly don't remember then you will have to admit you have to take worse case scenario 27:07 or before....
I look forward to see further results...

Peace

Like I said before.....the baseline was done one day

On the second day...I injected 6IUs SubQ then had Blood Drawn 2-3+ HRs after SubQ inject
Matt used similar Protocol

So again....not 27 hrs.....but numerous test 2-3+ HRs after SubQ inject

I don't time my testing to the Minutes/Seconds as I've seen you guys do....I'm doing IGF1s....the more important testing for bioavailability....not GH Serums that only test for bunk or GH present.

Buck, don't waste too much time trying to "prove this wrong". (TimeStamps)

There's no IGF1 conspiracy here

This is real testing....it really happened many times over

Only showing IGF1 does not take 4 weeks to elevate which is on all the BBing forums that use GH Serums as a main test

That's all my friend. I've done numerous Lab Testing, Blood Work. No Agenda. Just information