I totally agree, that's been my point since Dr J's and mands testing was released, and I have said it several times, the greytops are a good option and have alot more credibility since the testing was released.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
THE new "Generic" HGH Assay PAGE! AAA testing
- Thread starter mands
- Start date
BC these are only QUANTITATE assays nothing more can be said about the content of these products. Im specifically referring to the presence of CONTAMINANTS that mandate removal from Pharma GH.
To that end, the assumption made by some that such testing proves "generics are equivalent or close to Pharma" is flat-out WRONG!
unbroken87
Member
Just posted bloods on pd's greys in testing section
Yea and what do you think a 3 HOUR post injection GH level proves?
NOTHING !
unbroken87
Member
Damn Dr I just thought that was the standard for checking if you actually had some actual gh. Was just trying to help
Yea my apologies fella, but what you need is IGF levels
GH levels are far to inconsistent to be used as a measure of quantification.
What's needed is a BASELINE IGF and a repeat IGF obtained some 3-4 weeks after you have been on a FIXED GH dosage.
Sorry for being such a hard ass, but I do get frustrated when I see fellas like yourself wasting your hard earned money on testing of such limited value.
GH levels are far to inconsistent to be used as a measure of quantification.
What's needed is a BASELINE IGF and a repeat IGF obtained some 3-4 weeks after you have been on a FIXED GH dosage.
Sorry for being such a hard ass, but I do get frustrated when I see fellas like yourself wasting your hard earned money on testing of such limited value.
Last edited:
unbroken87
Member
No need to apologize you obviously have 100x the knowledge I do on gh. I was told igf levels stabilize after about a month but can also be elevated by other factors like carbs, insulin etc.
good point, what testing would need to be done to detect contaminants
best way is get baselines, run for three weeks, than get igf levels
unbroken87
Member
Got it I've been on 3 iu's for about a month but no baseline unfortunately. Would it still be worth it to get igf tested even with no baseline for reference?
Good question thats been asked before
but for a reliable results one really needs a baseline for comparison IMO.Also understand IGF values can NOT be used for quantification purposes per se either, bc GH/IGF dose response relationship is highly individualized.
Meaning while some may increase their IGF by 50% others may double their levels at the SAME DOSAGE, so the margin for error is considerable.
So if you really want to QUANTIFY the GH in that vial, it must undergo formal analytical testing.
Last edited:
@unbroken87 If you're SINCERELY interested in formal analytical testing PM me ASAP
unbroken87
Member
Got it appreciate you explaining to me. I'm sure you've probably said the same exact thing 100 times and are tired of repeating it so I'll start researching.Good question thats been asked before
Also understand IGF values can NOT be used for quantification purposes per se either, bc GH/IGF dose response relationship is highly individualized.
Meaning while some may increase their IGF by 50% others may double their levels at the SAME DOSAGE, so the margin for error is considerable.
So if you really want to QUANTIFY the GH in that vial, it must undergo formal analytical testing.
Good question thats been asked before
Also understand IGF values can NOT be used for quantification purposes per se either, bc GH/IGF dose response relationship is highly individualized.
Meaning while some may increase their IGF by 50% others may double their levels at the SAME DOSAGE, so the margin for error is considerable.
So if you really want to QUANTIFY the GH in that vial, it must undergo formal analytical testing.
Dr. Jim,
I agree with yr 2nd quote. Most will
That Formal Analytical testin is required.
So than Why would Mr. Unbroken need a IGF-1 test or what value would that be to him????
Excellent question, and the short answer is: as a biological "response marker"
I suppose one analogy would be
the testing TT levels upon completion of PCT, bc while one could assay LH directly, the response to LH, as in an elevated TT level, provides much more information with regard to anabolism.
A similar "problem" arises with essentially ANY DRUG, which is how does one determine response to therapy?
While the benefit of some therapies such as insulin for DM, can be noted within minutes, they are the exception.
While MANY underestimate the amount of time required for SKM anabolism (and end using unnecessarily high PED dosages) in many ways it's similar to the use of GH for those with growth retardation in that BOTH require
TIME and A LOT of it.
Thus changes in IGF provide a marker of in-vivo efficacy, which compliments improvements in LBM, IMO.
I would also suggest changes in IGF could be used as a means of determining whether a generic GH products QUALITY is in line with Pharma.
Admittedly such an endeavor would be more complicated as it would require
comparing ones IGF response to a FIXED dose of Pharma to an identical dose of generic GH.
Last edited:
I'm not suggesting everyone or anyone NEEDS IGF levels when running GH.
But IF one is searching for a means of establishing whether a generic product is "legitimate GH" vs HCG for instance, bc serum somatotropin levels fluctuate so widely (and the reasons are numerous; ranging from the VERY SHORT half life of GH, to alterations in serum glucose) such testing adds little to ones search of legitimacy and is essentially WORTHLESS as a means of quantifying supplemental GH.
It shouldn't take long to realize how some in the BB community extrapolated the use of DIAGNOTIC GH testing and misapplied such methodologies to supplemental GH use!
Nonetheless changes in IGF may provide a rough estimate of GH quantification but as I mentioned previously bc the GH dose/ IGF response relationship is so individualistic it's a VERY crude measure at best.
jim
But IF one is searching for a means of establishing whether a generic product is "legitimate GH" vs HCG for instance, bc serum somatotropin levels fluctuate so widely (and the reasons are numerous; ranging from the VERY SHORT half life of GH, to alterations in serum glucose) such testing adds little to ones search of legitimacy and is essentially WORTHLESS as a means of quantifying supplemental GH.
It shouldn't take long to realize how some in the BB community extrapolated the use of DIAGNOTIC GH testing and misapplied such methodologies to supplemental GH use!
Nonetheless changes in IGF may provide a rough estimate of GH quantification but as I mentioned previously bc the GH dose/ IGF response relationship is so individualistic it's a VERY crude measure at best.
jim
Last edited:
It can be updated if @Dr JIM can post a pic of sample #OO. This was a sample that was sent in with the same number #24 a while back. And we had to omit it and change the number. It was sent over to me to review but it didn't make the cut for posting as Jim and I agreed on a certain number samples posted each time to keep it more clean.
mands
hey jim what good are igf tests? you could just have igf peptide instead of hgh?
Is this a serious question or do you just not know the pharmacokinetics of exogenous GH and IGF-1?
mands
Similar threads
