malfeasance
Well-known Member
Interesting.
Group 1, 3x a week
Group 2, daily
Group 1 had less weekly growth hormone than group 2.
0.18U/kg/week v. 0.42U/kg/week
That is because the injections were the same, so Group 1 was getting 3 injections and Group 2 was getting 7 injections of the same amount scaled to bodyweight.
Is "U" the same as iu back in 1994?
If so, then a 220 pound bodybuilder would be injecting 18 iu per week or 42 iu per week. "Low dose" 6 iu each injection? I do not remember what year iu became standardized. This is, however, the "ideal therapeutic dose" at least for children and adolescents, so it is probably high. This was not the dose for old men hoping to look younger and in shape.
So the outcome, though.
Whole group was fat bodies, around 28% body fat. They also had serious physical reasons for having low growth hormone. So this is not a case of otherwise healthy folks injecting growth hormone. Pituitary tumors, head injuries, or Sheehan's syndrome.
Diet was only 15% protein.
No exercise changes or lifestyle changes. Just do whatever you are doing and inject this for 6 months.
IGF-1 was much lower at 3 months in the 3x group compared to the daily group, but at six months, they were almost the same.
Both groups added lean mass and lost fat after 6 months, even though everybody's weight (include the third group, controls) stayed the same.
Added mass:
1.3 kg - 3x
1.7 kg - daily
Only in group 2 (daily), however, did the researchers conclude that "total body muscle mass" increased significantly.
Fat lost:
2.0 kg - 3x
0.9 kg - daily
Control group put on fat over that 6 month period.
There were some huge differences about fat, however, that do not seem to be reflected in the numbers above. The daily group, group 2, seemed kick ass on removing a lot of fat in comparison to group 1 (3X), when looking at this chart.
While only group 1 put on thigh muscle as confirmed by computed tomography. This chart contradicts the overall findings reported above it, but it is measuring "area," a two dimensional measurement, so I do not know how to analyze it.
They did not measure body fat the way most of us would recognize. No dexa, no hydrostatic weighing.
There were some increased strength findings.
No bone density changes.
Maximal oxygen uptake increased.
Blood pressure increased, and it was already high for these fat bodies.
Side effects in 20% of them, pitting edema, glucose intolerance, and blood pressure (hypertension).
antibodies found in one subject, but no evidence of reduced hormone effect
Last edited:
