Using HGH to lower SHBG

[pmgamer18]

more on HGH.

Found this today and it supports what Dr. John said about going on HGH if your below 300.
http://www.drcady.com/age_management/growth_hormones.htm

 

[stat1951]

Found this today and it supports what Dr. John said about going on HGH if your below 300.
http://www.drcady.com/age_management/growth_hormones.htm

Excellent article, but doesn't do a lot of good if its off-label use is illegal )drr posting further up) - and the Feds are starting to clamp down on its off label prescription.

Larry

 

[frankwhardy]

Have you tried T Cyp injections to get your T to high normal. I say T Cyp injections, because your DHT is already high and transdermal will make that worse.

This is an excerpt from "The Testosterone Syndrome" - by Dr. Eugene Shippen.

"High levels of testosterone actually depress production of SHBG". page 53

In your case you may want to keep it more stable at the high numbers and you may want to consider injecting every 3 days instead of once a week.

Yes, I've tried T-cyp and I felt worse on it, even though my T went up significantly and E2 remained fine (and I tried many different dosages, frequencies, and methods of administration). The T-cyp, at about 100mg/wk, pushed my high-normal DHT levels about a 100 pts above the upper limit (measured 4 days from the injection), so I can only imagine how bad a transdermal T would do regarding that issue.

I think it's generally true regarding the author's statement about increased T depressing SHBG, but you may have to be a bit careful because there's a corrollary principle that if you have a lot of aromatase activity then the increase in E2 (produced from the increase in T) can actually cause the SHBG level to rise even further - and make some individuals' free T situation even worse (even though total T is better).
Frank

 

[1cc]

Yes, I've tried T-cyp and I felt worse on it, even though my T went up significantly and E2 remained fine (and I tried many different dosages, frequencies, and methods of administration). The T-cyp, at about 100mg/wk, pushed my high-normal DHT levels about a 100 pts above the upper limit (measured 4 days from the injection), so I can only imagine how bad a transdermal T would do regarding that issue.

I think it's generally true regarding the author's statement about increased T depressing SHBG, but you may have to be a bit careful because there's a corrollary principle that if you have a lot of aromatase activity then the increase in E2 (produced from the increase in T) can actually cause the SHBG level to rise even further - and make some individuals' free T situation even worse (even though total T is better).
Frank

Your DHT at 100 points above your labs top of the range would put you at 118%. Swale does not think DHT is a problem until it goes above 200%. The T Cyp dose you tried is pretty high at 100mg. If your T went too high, it could make you feel bad. You may not need more than 50mg per week or about 21mg every 3 days. What was your E2 value at 100mg T Cyp?

You could also consider doing HCG only, since your DHT is already high. You would need to keep an eye on progesterone when doing HCG. A lot of this is trial and error, which is what any doc would do any way.

 

[pmgamer18]

Excellent article, but doesn't do a lot of good if its off-label use is illegal )drr posting further up) - and the Feds are starting to clamp down on its off label prescription.

Larry

Larry have you read this old post.
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/134238340

 

[cpeil2]

Larry have you read this old post.
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/134238340

Here's the language of the statute:

"whoever knowingly distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute, human growth hormone for any use in humans other than the treatment of a disease or other recognized medical condition, where such use has been authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 505 and pursuant to the order of a physician " (emphasis added).

A4M's argument that the legislative intent was to target non-medical use of HGH and not anti-aging use under the supervision of a physician would have some validity if the language of the statute were ambigous, so that it was necessary to consider outside sources to determine what the law meant. Decide for yourself how ambiguous the statute is.

 

[love_en]

I read this as GH being restricted to the labeled use of dwarfism in children, AIDS wasting and adults who fall below that insanely low reference range for IGF-1. I am waiting for the day that GH becomes scheduled like T. Then all anti-aging practitioners will be in a grey area of the law for doing what is best for their patients. I know quite well that reference ranges are not Gospel to them. They are bullcrap to me

 

[pmgamer18]

There are more posts further back I will look them up. I feel this started by some people against Anti -Aging.

 

[Matt Muscle]

In this article on GH it mentions levels under 350 IU of IGF-1 are considered evidence of deficiency. Does anyone here know how to convert the IU measurement into ng/ml for IGF-1?
http://womens-health.health-cares.net/anti-aging-hgh.php

 

[love_en]

350 iu of IGF-1 is the standard used by anti-aging practitioners. Below the minimum of the reference range is what regular doctors and the AMA go by. We are getting into the same area that testosterone is in. A reference range that has nothing to do with the actual health of the patient is dictating medical practice. Pituitary ablation sounds like a good idea for these jerkoff endos who keep on being so cold to people with "subclinical" deficiencies.

 

[Matt Muscle]

Yes.. the ranges for deficiency for HGH as far as endos are concerned is much lower... its just part of aging in thier books.
But what I wanted to know is, how does 350 IU of IGF-1 convert to ng/ml?

 

[ciobl]

jw how did you feel at the time ? I hope you kept hgh and nettle root intake by now and dropped/reduced the rest....

Blood work results were:

Total Test 850 ( 241-827)
Free TesT 28 (7-24)
E2 25 (0-54)
SHBG 30 ( 17-71)
IGF-1 412 (81-225)

 

[stat1951]

Larry have you read this old post.
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/134238340

Yes I did. Question will be how Feds continue to interpret the language.

It seems the article was put into JANA as a "warning" to start with. Considered along with the fact that prohormones (Andor, etc.) have been banned and now they're going after DHEA, my bet is that the Feds are going to take the strict interpretation viewpoint....

 

[pmgamer18]

Well if anyone would know you would. I just hate to see the Gov. doing crap like this with the DHEA.