malfeasance
Member
We need name, date of birth, social security number
oh . . . and bank account numbers
oh . . . and bank account numbers
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Post up your Natty IGF-1 Level
- Thread starter malfeasance
- Start date
Jin23
Member
Did you skip the part ... of actually reading the paper?
Bloodwork results came back.
209 ng/mL on 3iu Opti Greys.
Didn't really know what to expect but was thinking it would be higher than that.
The paper is like 100 pages, I didn't use the search function to search for CJC however, have to admit that
Oof, that’s really unexpected - hard to believe there’s such a small jump from 2iu to 3iu. I’d honestly expect a more noticeable increase. Could be individual response, testing variability, or even the Opti Greys themselves. I’m not an expert, I’ve only just started using HGH myself, but I’ve read that IGF-1 can fluctuate based on overall metabolism, diet, and other hormones. Still, that’s disappointing. Were all your previous tests done under the exact same conditions? Are you considering increasing the dose to 4 or 5iu?
AlexDavis43
Member
Kaizoku consistently responds on the lower end of the spectrum. According to data from other people in this thread, 2-3 IU/d should roughly correspond with IGF1 @ 320-350 (see graph posted above).
All tests done under the exact same conditions.
Dose split AM/PM, TRT level of test (200mg/wk), fasted 12 hours when blood drawn, inject first thing in the AM even on bloodwork days.
I’ve only ever used Opti Greys and since I’m not getting good results I’ve been considering swapping to a new source to see if it’s me or the greys…but with most of the affordable sources drying up I have to decide if it’s worth it financially.
I’ve got 2 more kits of greys, going to bump to 4iu and pull bloods again in 6 weeks.
I have no plans to compete, I’m just a mid-40s guy who likes looking and being in better shape than 95+% of other guys my age but at some point there has to be some return on investment and if I just don’t respond well to HGH I’ll drop it and put that money into something else.
Last edited:
UncleBuns
Member
It seems that the studies are using what we would call "CJC 1295 with DAC" because they define it as a long acting GHRH.What's your baseline and how much cjc are you taking?
And be mindful of long term exposure to cjc. There Might be some issues.
DNA damage and growth hormone hypersecretion in pituitary somatotroph adenomas - PMC
Drivers of sporadic benign pituitary adenoma growth are largely unknown. Whole-exome sequencing of 159 prospectively resected pituitary adenomas showed that somatic copy number alteration (SCNA) rather than mutation is a hallmark of ...pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I got away from using things like CJC DAC and MK 677 because they are long acting. Our bodies are designed for periodic transient spikes of GH. The constant stimulating agents have much harsher side effects than short acting versions or GH which can also be timed properly to minimize risks. The side effects are pronounced and outweigh the possible benefit of a bigger IGF 1 number. This new info adds to my list of why not to use the long acting compounds.
Thanks for sharing this.
AlexDavis43
Member
The human study on CJC-1295 showed it increased pulsatile secretion. Baseline hGH level was higher, so people called it "increased drip" but that was not reflected in the clearly increased higher pulses. Not sure if tesa has a similar study.
AlexDavis43
Member
I'm not doubting your exact same conditions, although maybe kinda xD
Just mainly that IGF1 response is all over the board. And IGF1 may not be the only benefit of using hGH
UncleBuns
Member
Long acting does. 1/2 life of ~6 days if I remember right. The CJC no DAC gives a spike then clears/metabolized pretty quick. Never used Tesa so haven't looked into it much.
AlexDavis43
Member
True, exact conditions is a stretch.
Similar conditions is a better way to describe it.
And absolutely as far as benefits beyond IGF-1 levels.
Even with low IGF-1 response my sleep has been better, skin better, fat loss easier, workout recovery better, energy levels better, nagging injuries better.
I can’t say for sure that’s all from HGH, but all of that started a few months after I started taking it.
Jin23
Member
Np.
Cjc 1295 is the correct name. There is no cjc 1295 dac, only cjc 1295 and Mod grf 1-29. The confusion is because of morons in the ugl business who can't even properly name a compound.
Jin23
Member
As alex properly linked, the pituitary output remains pulsatile, however, that still doesn't mean that the RHGHr's aren't constantly agonized, which creates the problem.
I'm also not sure if the subject in the study were fasted? As if they weren't, then the pulsatile nature could be because of fed/fasted states. Alex, mind looking that up?
malfeasance
Member
Split, so 1.5iu morning and 1.5 iu evening?
Exactly. 1.5 as soon as I wake up, 1.5 right before bed.
Also, took 2iu last night, 1.3iu this morning and will leave the PM dose at 2iu and titrate the AM dose up to 2iu until I run out of greys or have to back down because of CTS sides.
Last edited:
AlexDavis43
Member
They took bloods multiple times a day for weeks. Fasted wouldn't be possible (ref). The GH pulsality remained. This was CJC not mod GRF. Full text attached.
thoroughlyconfused
New Member
How poor is a level of 191 at 22? For reference I'm on the fatter side of things which Lowers it but not insanely fat
Sicsemptyran
Member
My first IGF-1 ever tested was at ~25 and was 250 or so. You’re in the 25th percentile based on a quick search. So not awful, but definitely on the low end.
Similar threads
