That's interesting. Maybe use a reset before going down to contest level lean?
What about if you just use GH for recovery and anti-aging purposes? Any need for long period off?
Do you personally think GH use is safe? My main concerns are kidney and acromegaly.
No need to waste your time explaning the IGF levels. Just curious on your short answer if you feel like it.
I don't compete, so really can't speak to the best strategy for it since basically, if it's not applicable to me, I'm not motivated to dig into it much.
As far as anti-aging, if you stop rHGH you're going return to baseline at some point. Skin, body composition, psychological benefits from the neurogenesis rHGH stimulates. So long term maintainance is crucial, and really, UGL pricing has finally made that realistically possible without being ultra wealthy or having. to travel for treatment by some 3rd world quack.
TLDR despite receptor downregualtion, at the same dose you eventually reach homeostasis and can maintain the gains you've made without needing a break. But without ongoing improvements, aging will continue, it's just continuing from the earlier point you "reset" your biological age to once you plateau after a year or two on whatever dose of rHGh you're using. So to counter the downregulation and plateau to push the clock back against continued age induced degeneration, you either need to increase the dose which will become unsustainable, or "reset" with breaks or Tesa.
As far as acromegaly, you just need to keep half an eye on IGF. it's clear that below a certain age adjusted IGF level there's no risk of that happening, "In range" or slightly elevated IGF and acromegaly has never been observed, It's just a question of how far you want to push it. Maybe you can go much higher than 1.2x ULN without risk? It's an unknown. But at or below it risk is effectively zero.
And in terms of cancer. People with higher IGF, but still perfectly physiological levels, have higher rates of cancer. It's logical. Higher IGF means higher cell turnover. You heal faster, you are biologically "younger", but defective cells will grow faster too. It's a mixed bag. I'd say I'll accept the risk, the level is still fairly low, along with the burden of having to be more vigilant with routine testing.
Hell, it's possible that if some future study looks at long term, sophisticated, informed anti-aging rHGH users, as a group, if they're more diligent about tests you should be doing anyway, it's possible the mortality rate from cancer might end up being LOWER, just because it's caught earlier in that group. (as long as it's not some inoperable very rare type).
In the treatment guidelines, no one is barred from rHGH if they had cancer previously or a family history of it or whatever higher risk factors. rHGH is only *paused* until they are in remission, then it can be started again, The greater cancer surveillance rHGH patients get as standard part of therapy might explain why cancer deaths are often *lower* in that group than non rHGH users.
