No I don't notice anything like that, haha.. so maybe it is doing nothing but I won't really know until I get a blood test
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
-
ATTENTION New Members: Please take a few moments to introduce yourself, show your commitment to harm reduction, and chat with the community in the "New Member Introduction" subforum. This will help unlock access to additional forum features and privileges.
Most amount of hgh you've used.
- Thread starter penche
- Start date
Ripped
New Member
Considering it's not a narcotic and a hormone it has a totally different effect.
I had to ask tho had me wondering.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Ya no effect like that.
Forgot to mention I know 1 guy doing 2iu IV preworkout EOD only.. no other pinning in the day and he is seeing fat loss results without changing diet or his stack. That was another thing that intrigued me about it
Marcus
New Member
While I can see the advantage of IV administration from an objective point of view, I can't justify doing it as an ex-IV drug user. I do not judge anyone who does at all, but I can't bring myself to do it.
It does have me thinking though, has anyone ever crushed and snorted dbol or something like that? Lol
It does have me thinking though, has anyone ever crushed and snorted dbol or something like that? Lol
ChestRockwell
Well-known Member
A high level answer, assuming one is running equal doses, SC and IM will produce essentially identical systemic IGF-1 levels.
Correct!!!
Send to
Pediatrics. 1985 Sep;76(3):361-4.
Subcutaneous versus intramuscular growth hormone therapy: growth and acute somatomedin response.
Wilson DM, Baker B, Hintz RL, Rosenfeld RG.
Abstract
To determine the optimal route of growth hormone administration, a comparison was made of the acute somatomedin response and chronic growth response to either intramuscular or subcutaneous growth hormone in 20 children with growth hormone deficiency. None of the children had received growth hormone for at least 2 weeks prior to their random selection to receive growth hormone by either the subcutaneous (N = 11) or intramuscular (N = 9) route. Plasma samples for determination of levels of insulin-like growth factors I and II (IGF-I and IGF-II) were obtained prior to therapy and 20 hours after the first and fourth of four daily injections of growth hormone. Growth rate and growth hormone antibody levels were determined before and after 6 months of therapy. IGF-I levels tripled in both treatment groups after four days of growth hormone injections, whereas IGF-II levels nearly doubled, with no significant difference between the intramuscular or subcutaneous group. After 6 months of therapy, there was no significant difference in growth rate and only two patients had developed growth hormone antibodies. Both patients and parents expressed a preference for the subcutaneous method. The identical rises in the IGF-I and IGF-II levels following a brief course of either subcutaneous or intramuscular injections of growth hormone, the similar growth rates, the low incidence of antibody development, and the preference for the subcutaneous route all suggest that the subcutaneous route is the method of choice for chronic growth hormone therapy.
mands
ChestRockwell
Well-known Member
Thanks @mands
Recently just wrote a review on this topic
With that said, I have been toying around with some protocols that I feel might have the ability to suppress systemic IGF-1 levels and it requires a combination of smaller injections followed by a period of returning to baseline (i.e. not too frequent). Using a version of this, I was able to keep my IGF-1 levels within just a few points of each other despite running double the weekly GH.
Got me a bit excited to think about the possibilities here.
Recently just wrote a review on this topic
With that said, I have been toying around with some protocols that I feel might have the ability to suppress systemic IGF-1 levels and it requires a combination of smaller injections followed by a period of returning to baseline (i.e. not too frequent). Using a version of this, I was able to keep my IGF-1 levels within just a few points of each other despite running double the weekly GH.
Got me a bit excited to think about the possibilities here.
That's awesome man. Keep us posted.Thanks @mands
Recently just wrote a review on this topic
With that said, I have been toying around with some protocols that I feel might have the ability to suppress systemic IGF-1 levels and it requires a combination of smaller injections followed by a period of returning to baseline (i.e. not too frequent). Using a version of this, I was able to keep my IGF-1 levels within just a few points of each other despite running double the weekly GH.
Got me a bit excited to think about the possibilities here.
mands
Ya I knew that but was asking if there is a study or bloodwork of someone doing SC/IM in the AM and then IV mid day. Compared to taking the full dose in the AM and no IV
ChestRockwell
Well-known Member
I don't recall coming across any trials that used those exact variables, no.
Another problem with IV dosing is that it tends to saturate GHBP due to the high GH supply for such a short peak. So there will be a higher clearance rate of unbound GH, potentially meaning that one received less "bang for their buck" for their dose. It also could be why IGF-1 levels tend to be significantly lower, as more unbound GH is cleared from the system before it has the chance to perform any metabolic function.
Another problem with IV dosing is that it tends to saturate GHBP due to the high GH supply for such a short peak. So there will be a higher clearance rate of unbound GH, potentially meaning that one received less "bang for their buck" for their dose. It also could be why IGF-1 levels tend to be significantly lower, as more unbound GH is cleared from the system before it has the chance to perform any metabolic function.
Does adding insulin increase GHBP?
ChestRockwell
Well-known Member
No, I believe insulin has the opposite effect beyond replacement levels. The extracellular domain of GHBPs is identical to GHRs and GHRs down-regulate in the presence of elevated insulin in certain tissues.
It is true that insulin-dependent diabetes patients have very low serum GHBP levels and they are restored using conventional insulin treatments however.
As a general rule though GH up-regulates GHBPs and insulin down-regulates GHBPs. But this is not to be taken as gospel because there are many exceptions such as acromegaly.
Marcus
New Member
Chest, some things are a little beyond me here but I'm trying to keep up. Can you explain this a bit? Do you mean conventional TX like diet and exercise or like medication or combination, or something else entirely? And if insulin-dependent patients have low serum GHBP, then how can any TX change this? Does insulin have to be removed?
ChestRockwell
Well-known Member
Sorry, I meant the use of exogenous insulin.
You would become diabetic from NOT using insulin along with GH, as GH causes sustained hyperglycemia after the initial transient hypoglycemia
ChestRockwell
Well-known Member
Although GH does cause insulin resistance (by design), it is a very strong leap to assume one will become an actual diabetic simply by using GH itself.
I also believe that the decrease in insulin sensitivity by running GH varies from the individual.
Would you agree?
mands
ChestRockwell
Well-known Member
@mands Yes, absolutely.
Schwasty
New Member
What's the added risk of diabetes from adding insulin? Is it drastically different from using solely hgh?
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Sigma Audley Inc. - Your source for peptides, ancillaries, AAS, and more!
- Latest: Megachocotone