OK, then tell us when this law of diminishing returns kicks in? And, again, where did you get this? Is there a study or just made of bro science and did it apply to you? If your base level is at an average 200 ng/ml and you did 3 ius
did that move you up to 500 ng/ml?
Maybe you are right. It's just some evidence is required to make such an across the board claim. It certainly doesn't apply to me at 8ius/day
There is definitely a bit of bro-science in there, which is why I said "general rule." To be clear, that term is not and shouldn't be considered scientific, so I raise my hand on the foul if it was taken that way.
The 100 per 1 IU has been mentioned on here from other people as well, so it's not original thought. However, it does ring true for me. I tested at 4 IU per day, and had an IGF of 415. You mention the base level + 100 per IU, but there are studies to support that once you introduce exogenous GH, your GRF is significantly inhibited for the following 24 hours--not unsimilar to exogenous testosterone and your natural production. Following that logic, it would not be your base +, it would be the newly established level base of exogenous GH--assuming daily use or even EOD. That said, unlike the more predictable outcomes of testosterone replacement, GH supplementation is far from an exact science, especially in those who aren't actually medically deficit. Moreover, there are many factors, many of which have been mentioned countlessly on here, that have an impact on IGF-1. I'm not a doctor or a scientist, nor have I claimed to be. I can't tell you why 8IU doesn't do more for your IGF-1 than 4IU does for me. I can probably make a pretty good guess that it's due to your age, but that's not scientific. It is logical though. On this forum, your age would qualify you as an outlier. Hell, in my late 40s, I'm probably close to one in here as well. Finally, the law of diminishing returns is not static. I know you know this. You and I are taking the same compound and getting completely different results, because, in the end, it's not an exact science. There are a myriad of factors that, unfortunately, can't be quantified. If it were, we wouldn't have all these questions. I was trying to be helpful in passing along what I have experienced and what others have posted with their tests. I certainly wasn't trying be a know-it-all, which is why I said "general rule." Take it how you will. I'm going to keep using opti, getting blood work done, and posting my results. [emoji111]