MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Aesthetic Benefits of HGH : BS or?

S

SlamSumTest

New Member
Does HGH improve skin quality and boost hair growth as people say? It’s touted as the ultimate anti-aging peptide but…elevated IGF-1 -> more cell turnover -> accelerated aging biologically.

Thoughts?
 
SlamSumTest said:
Does HGH improve skin quality and boost hair growth as people say? It’s touted as the ultimate anti-aging peptide but…elevated IGF-1 -> more cell turnover -> accelerated aging biologically.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

This is waaay longer of a response than you expected, but “BS” unintentionally hit a nerve on this topic (and anti-aging / enhancement via medical science generally).

Yes, very real benefits, with caveats:

1. Slow and subtle. The slowest working PED those of us in this scene will likely ever use. For anti-aging / aesthetics be prepared to commit for the very long haul or don’t bother.

2. Within or not too far beyond physiological limits. The levels that produce significant anabolic results can make you ugly with long term use. This requires another commitment. To testing and managing IGF-1 / Z-score.

3. The older you are / the lower your baseline IGF-1 the more pronounced the aesthetic benefits. A 23 yo with average IGF-1 is wasting their time.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist. The narrative establishment medicine has regarding rHGH is one that uniformly denies, or at best, casts “doubt” regarding benefits of rHGH for “healthy” adults,

At the same time, the science clearly demonstrates benefits exist, even for “healthy” subjects. While trials using healthy people are rarer, they do exist, even mechanistically it's obvious rHGH can provide benefits.

The denials of rHGH doing anything positive in terms of performance enhancement and anti-aging are so over the top, it’s not an exaggeration to say it’s institutional gaslighting.

Even AI responds the same negative way medical professionals do regarding any potential benefit from this “forbidden” hormone. Denial, doubt, induce fear.

I spoke to someone in medicine about this, and it comes down to 1) establishment medicine’s hostility toward “turning aging into a disease to be treated” (yet logically, it is, and this crosses into bullshit “values” that handcuff science from helping people to the fullest of its capabilities), and 2) a deep seated fear that acknowledging ANYTHING positive regarding rHGH, will send the masses rushing to pin themselves with the “fountain of youth”.

rHGH is the *only* medication that has a federal law preventing doctors from prescribing it for any “off label use”.

As for accelerated aging, there’s some truth, not in the sense it makes you look visibly older, but that there’s a limit to cell regeneration capacity. GH drops like a rock around 25, the theory being that’s the point the body shifts from rapid cell turnover for growth (and quick healing), to “conservation” of the regenerative capacity of cells.

We simply don’t have very much info on decades of use. What happens to different tissues if you “use up” cell turnover capacity “early”. All I can say it this. The most likely indicator would be that some cells, instead of no longer turning over (and / or dying) once regenerative capacity is exhausted, keep growing as some form of cancer. On the other hand, it’s also possible we die at 100 with a mountain of unused regenerative capacity, wasted potential, No one knows.

The longest adult growth hormone deficiency patients who’ve been treated are about 20 years into it. There is no signal they have any higher rate of cancer than anyone else, or that if they get it, it’s any more dangerous. People with high IGF do have slightly higher rates of cancer. They also have better health overall and less likely to die from metabolic disorders like cardiovascular disease and diabetes, I’m going to suggest based on the documented impact of higher vs lower natural IGF-1, the higher group also has had a higher quality of life, sharper cognition, less depression, are more successful, more vigor, and look younger for a lifetime.

While the low IGF group has tons of regenerative capacity left over when they die prematurely from a heart attack, substance abuse, too slow and tired to dodge a bus, off themselves via a slow or fast form of depression motivated suicide, or just spend the last 30+ years of their lives so flat, sluggish, dull brained and ugly they wish they had the vigor left to end it.



* In many ways it parallels the prevailing attitude toward TRT a few years ago. The range is 150-1100. You’re 160, at 30 years old. Fat, depressed and unmotivated. “No testosterone for you, you’re in range, it’s *dangerous*, only to be used sparingly, and GOD FORBID, never to optimize.”
 
Last edited:
Ghoul said:
This is waaay longer of a response than you expected, but “BS” unintentionally hit a nerve on this topic (and anti-aging / enhancement via medical science generally).

Yes, very real benefits, with caveats:

1. Slow and subtle. The slowest working PED those of us in this scene will likely ever use. For anti-aging / aesthetics be prepared to commit for the very long haul or don’t bother.

2. Within or not too far beyond physiological limits. The levels that produce significant anabolic results can make you ugly with long term use. This requires another commitment. To testing and managing IGF-1 / Z-score.

3. The older you are / the lower your baseline IGF-1 the more pronounced the aesthetic benefits. A 23 yo with average IGF-1 is wasting their time.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist. The narrative establishment medicine has regarding rHGH is one that uniformly denies, or at best, casts “doubt” regarding benefits of rHGH for “healthy” adults,

At the same time, the science clearly demonstrates benefits exist, even for “healthy” subjects. While trials using healthy people are rarer, they do exist, even mechanistically it's obvious rHGH can provide benefits.

The denials of rHGH doing anything positive in terms of performance enhancement and anti-aging are so over the top, it’s not an exaggeration to say it’s institutional gaslighting.

Even AI responds the same negative way medical professionals do regarding any potential benefit from this “forbidden” hormone. Denial, doubt, induce fear.

I spoke to someone in medicine about this, and it comes down to 1) establishment medicine’s hostility toward “turning aging into a disease to be treated” (yet logically, it is, and this crosses into bullshit “values” that handcuff science from helping people to the fullest of its capabilities), and 2) a deep seated fear that acknowledging ANYTHING positive regarding rHGH, will send the masses rushing to pin themselves with the “fountain of youth”.

rHGH is the *only* medication that has a federal law preventing doctors from prescribing it for any “off label use”.

As for accelerated aging, there’s some truth, not in the sense it makes you look visibly older, but that there’s a limit to cell regeneration capacity. GH drops like a rock around 25, the theory being that’s the point the body shifts from rapid cell turnover for growth (and quick healing), to “conservation” of the regenerative capacity of cells.

We simply don’t have very much info on decades of use. What happens to different tissues if you “use up” cell turnover capacity “early”. All I can say it this. The most likely indicator of that some cells, instead of no longer turning over (and / or dying) once regenerative capacity is exhausted, they keep growing, as some form of cancer. On the other hand, it’s also possible we die at 100 with a mountain of unused regenerative capacity, wasted potential, No one knows.

The longest adult growth hormone deficiency patients who’ve been treated are about 20 years into it. There is no signal they have any higher rate of cancer than anyone else, or that if they get it, it’s any more dangerous. People with high IGF do have slightly higher rates of cancer. They also have better health overall and less likely to die from metabolic disorders like cardiovascular disease and diabetes, I’m going to suggest based on the documented impact of higher vs lower natural IGF-1, the higher group also has had a higher quality of life, sharper cognition, less depression, are more
successful, more vigor, and look younger for a lifetime.

While the low IGF group has tons of regenerative capacity left over when they die prematurely from a heart attack, substance abuse, too slow and tired to dodge a bus, off themselves via a slow or fast form of depression motivated suicide, or just spend the last 30+ years of their lives so flat, sluggish, dull brained and ugly they wish they had the vigor left to end it.



* In many ways it parallels the prevailing attitude toward TRT a few years ago. The range is 150-1100. You’re 160, at 30 years old. Fat, depressed and unmotivated. “No testosterone for you, you’re in range, it’s *dangerous*, only to be used sparingly, and GOD FORBID, never to optimize.”
Click to expand...
I agree i always had a very low igf1, i suspect this to accelerate the damage to my kidneys and need dialysis
Igf 1 at 110 before gh has been used
 
Anonymous35 said:
I agree i always had a very low igf1, i suspect this to accelerate the damage to my kidneys and need dialysis
Igf 1 at 110 before gh has been used
Click to expand...

You may be right. Looking at the studies, it appears 1) rHGH use in short children with established CKD doesn’t worsen it and 2) While In late stages it doesn’t help, in early stage CKD it looks like it does.

We know GH plays a major role in kidney function. The boost in GFR and water retention caused by GH action on the kidney is what’s behind the side effects we’re all familiar with.

Chicken and egg situation, because poor kidney function causes low IGF-1 (“GH resistance”), but low GH worsens kidney function.

Since you can’t rely on IGF-1 to determine whether you have low GH, you’d have to get a GH stimulation test. I’m sure you could arrange it.(on your own dime).

The latest paper (below) on the topic was primarily about GH deficient short children who also had CKD while on rHGH treatment.

But the authors noted how safe rHGH is known to be with CKD patients, that normal (but not excessively low or high) GH has positive effect on kidney function, and that rHGH is. *recommended therapy* post kidney transplant, proven to help kidneys, yet it’s almost never used! (Look at the BS reasons why! Ie “patients won’t bother injecting themselves” and “cost of rHGH”, like anyone pays for a kidney transplant without insurance.)

The last line essentially says “we need to do more studies because it’s likely a much wider CKD group than just short children and kidney transplant recipients would likely benefit from this.

Good luck. Hopefully you can get a GH “glucose response” test (they’re not hugely expensive) to see if you have genuinely low GH, then if it’s low, seek a way to correct it and stop any further kidney damage. You may be lonely or looked at like a nut by conventional nephrologists, but if it were me, I’d find one, maybe at a university, or one of the researchers in the paper below, that’s on top of the science to get some suggestions about who you might approach to get “low GH related CKD” before it gets worse. Good luck brother.

IMG_3685.webp

 
Ghoul said:
This is waaay longer of a response than you expected, but “BS” unintentionally hit a nerve on this topic (and anti-aging / enhancement via medical science generally).

Yes, very real benefits, with caveats:

1. Slow and subtle. The slowest working PED those of us in this scene will likely ever use. For anti-aging / aesthetics be prepared to commit for the very long haul or don’t bother.

2. Within or not too far beyond physiological limits. The levels that produce significant anabolic results can make you ugly with long term use. This requires another commitment. To testing and managing IGF-1 / Z-score.

3. The older you are / the lower your baseline IGF-1 the more pronounced the aesthetic benefits. A 23 yo with average IGF-1 is wasting their time.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist. The narrative establishment medicine has regarding rHGH is one that uniformly denies, or at best, casts “doubt” regarding benefits of rHGH for “healthy” adults,

At the same time, the science clearly demonstrates benefits exist, even for “healthy” subjects. While trials using healthy people are rarer, they do exist, even mechanistically it's obvious rHGH can provide benefits.

The denials of rHGH doing anything positive in terms of performance enhancement and anti-aging are so over the top, it’s not an exaggeration to say it’s institutional gaslighting.

Even AI responds the same negative way medical professionals do regarding any potential benefit from this “forbidden” hormone. Denial, doubt, induce fear.

I spoke to someone in medicine about this, and it comes down to 1) establishment medicine’s hostility toward “turning aging into a disease to be treated” (yet logically, it is, and this crosses into bullshit “values” that handcuff science from helping people to the fullest of its capabilities), and 2) a deep seated fear that acknowledging ANYTHING positive regarding rHGH, will send the masses rushing to pin themselves with the “fountain of youth”.

rHGH is the *only* medication that has a federal law preventing doctors from prescribing it for any “off label use”.

As for accelerated aging, there’s some truth, not in the sense it makes you look visibly older, but that there’s a limit to cell regeneration capacity. GH drops like a rock around 25, the theory being that’s the point the body shifts from rapid cell turnover for growth (and quick healing), to “conservation” of the regenerative capacity of cells.

We simply don’t have very much info on decades of use. What happens to different tissues if you “use up” cell turnover capacity “early”. All I can say it this. The most likely indicator would be that some cells, instead of no longer turning over (and / or dying) once regenerative capacity is exhausted, keep growing as some form of cancer. On the other hand, it’s also possible we die at 100 with a mountain of unused regenerative capacity, wasted potential, No one knows.

The longest adult growth hormone deficiency patients who’ve been treated are about 20 years into it. There is no signal they have any higher rate of cancer than anyone else, or that if they get it, it’s any more dangerous. People with high IGF do have slightly higher rates of cancer. They also have better health overall and less likely to die from metabolic disorders like cardiovascular disease and diabetes, I’m going to suggest based on the documented impact of higher vs lower natural IGF-1, the higher group also has had a higher quality of life, sharper cognition, less depression, are more successful, more vigor, and look younger for a lifetime.

While the low IGF group has tons of regenerative capacity left over when they die prematurely from a heart attack, substance abuse, too slow and tired to dodge a bus, off themselves via a slow or fast form of depression motivated suicide, or just spend the last 30+ years of their lives so flat, sluggish, dull brained and ugly they wish they had the vigor left to end it.



* In many ways it parallels the prevailing attitude toward TRT a few years ago. The range is 150-1100. You’re 160, at 30 years old. Fat, depressed and unmotivated. “No testosterone for you, you’re in range, it’s *dangerous*, only to be used sparingly, and GOD FORBID, never to optimize.”
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing. I am in my late 20s so not sure how beneficial rHGH would be for me right now. You say it drops like a rock at 25, would you say replacement doses (2Iu) become a needle mover in your 30s?

I’ll add that I’m on TRT at a young age (self diagnosed/administered); was a route I chose to take after multiple results at the low end of the range (some under at 200-250) despite an optimal lifestyle and multiple tests. Doctors gave me a run around constantly, one offered enclomiphene. I decided to pursue it and the QoL changes have been insane to say the least as far as energy, vitality and drive goes.

I will definitely be setting money aside for when HGH makes sense, though.
 
Ghoul said:
You may be right. Looking at the studies, it appears 1) rHGH use in short children with established CKD doesn’t worsen it and 2) While In late stages it doesn’t help, in early stage CKD it looks like it does.

We know GH plays a major role in kidney function. The boost in GFR and water retention caused by GH action on the kidney is what’s behind the side effects we’re all familiar with.

Chicken and egg situation, because poor kidney function causes low IGF-1 (“GH resistance”), but low GH worsens kidney function.

Since you can’t rely on IGF-1 to determine whether you have low GH, you’d have to get a GH stimulation test. I’m sure you could arrange it.(on your own dime).

The latest paper (below) on the topic was primarily about GH deficient short children who also had CKD while on rHGH treatment.

But the authors noted how safe rHGH is known to be with CKD patients, that normal (but not excessively low or high) GH has positive effect on kidney function, and that rHGH is. *recommended therapy* post kidney transplant, proven to help kidneys, yet it’s almost never used! (Look at the BS reasons why! Ie “patients won’t bother injecting themselves” and “cost of rHGH”, like anyone pays for a kidney transplant without insurance.)

The last line essentially says “we need to do more studies because it’s likely a much wider CKD group than just short children and kidney transplant recipients would likely benefit from this.

Good luck. Hopefully you can get a GH “glucose response” test (they’re not hugely expensive) to see if you have genuinely low GH, then if it’s low, seek a way to correct it and stop any further kidney damage. You may be lonely or looked at like a nut by conventional nephrologists, but if it were me, I’d find one, maybe at a university, or one of the researchers in the paper below, that’s on top of the science to get some suggestions about who you might approach to get “low GH related CKD” before it gets worse. Good luck brother.

View attachment 364140

Click to expand...
I did a blood work when I was 18 yo and my hGH was around 6
But my IGF1 was 110
Thats why i don’t think PED was the cause of my disease
Plus i had hypoalbuminemia before i used PED’s in 2021
Then officially diagnosed with FSGS in aug 2024
And now on dialysis since October 2025

But btw even with a strong dose of GH my igf1 was never above > 300
So i always took HGH
 
Anonymous35 said:
I did a blood work when I was 18 yo and my hGH was around 6
But my IGF1 was 110
Thats why i don’t think PED was the cause of my disease
Plus i had hypoalbuminemia before i used PED’s in 2021
Then officially diagnosed with FSGS in aug 2024
And now on dialysis since October 2025

But btw even with a strong dose of GH my igf1 was never above > 300
So i always took HGH
Click to expand...

To be clear, I was agreeing that your low GH, not rHGH could’ve caused, and continues to worsen your CKD.

For those taking big doses it’s important to know that rHGH will temporarily make egfr look excellent before kidney function declines as scarring occurs. Another risk the megadosers don’t seem to be aware of…
 
Ghoul said:
To be clear, I was agreeing that your low GH, not rHGH could’ve caused, and continues to worsen your CKD.

For those taking big doses it’s important to know that rHGH will temporarily make egfr look excellent before kidney function declines as scarring occurs. Another risk the megadosers don’t seem to be aware of…
Click to expand...
Scaring for what reasons? RAAS activation? High BP?
 
anon55 said:
Scaring for what reasons? RAAS activation? High BP?
Click to expand...

Excess growth hormone makes the kidneys “overwork”: GH and IGF-1 push the kidney filters (glomeruli) to grow bigger and run at higher pressure, so they filter more blood than normal (hyperfiltration) and the kidneys can enlarge. Over months to years that constant extra load injures the filter cells (podocytes), leading to protein leaking into the urine (albuminuria/proteinuria). If the exposure continues, some glomeruli scar in a pattern called focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), and widespread scarring can slowly reduce kidney function and raise the risk of chronic kidney disease or even end-stage kidney failure, especially when high blood pressure is a factor.
 
Ghoul said:
Excess growth hormone makes the kidneys “overwork”: GH and IGF-1 push the kidney filters (glomeruli) to grow bigger and run at higher pressure, so they filter more blood than normal (hyperfiltration) and the kidneys can enlarge. Over months to years that constant extra load injures the filter cells (podocytes), leading to protein leaking into the urine (albuminuria/proteinuria). If the exposure continues, some glomeruli scar in a pattern called focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), and widespread scarring can slowly reduce kidney function and raise the risk of chronic kidney disease or even end-stage kidney failure, especially when high blood pressure is a factor.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the answer, I did not know that.
 
Ghoul said:
Excess growth hormone makes the kidneys “overwork”: GH and IGF-1 push the kidney filters (glomeruli) to grow bigger and run at higher pressure, so they filter more blood than normal (hyperfiltration) and the kidneys can enlarge. Over months to years that constant extra load injures the filter cells (podocytes), leading to protein leaking into the urine (albuminuria/proteinuria). If the exposure continues, some glomeruli scar in a pattern called focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), and widespread scarring can slowly reduce kidney function and raise the risk of chronic kidney disease or even end-stage kidney failure, especially when high blood pressure is a factor.
Click to expand...
Btw my blood pressure can’t go down
Too
Mine is now 160/70 on 20mg telmisartan feeling like shit
And it was 160/110 before feeling way better
 
Ghoul said:
Excess growth hormone makes the kidneys “overwork”: GH and IGF-1 push the kidney filters (glomeruli) to grow bigger and run at higher pressure, so they filter more blood than normal (hyperfiltration) and the kidneys can enlarge. Over months to years that constant extra load injures the filter cells (podocytes), leading to protein leaking into the urine (albuminuria/proteinuria). If the exposure continues, some glomeruli scar in a pattern called focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), and widespread scarring can slowly reduce kidney function and raise the risk of chronic kidney disease or even end-stage kidney failure, especially when high blood pressure is a factor.
Click to expand...
FSGS from steroid can happened
But not as quickly and severe
Only 2 years isn’t enough even with strong cycle to develop this disease
Most of the time FSGS from steroid happened after 5-15 years of using PED
And its very rare to have nephrotic syndrome with it
 
Anonymous35 said:
FSGS from steroid can happened
But not as quickly and severe
Only 2 years isn’t enough even with strong cycle to develop this disease
Most of the time FSGS from steroid happened after 5-15 years of using PED
And its very rare to have nephrotic syndrome with it
Click to expand...

Risk factors for kidney damage don’t add, they multiply. rHGH is one.

We seem to have a very high proportion of people with reduced kidney function on this forum for some reason…
 
Anonymous35 said:
Btw my blood pressure can’t go down
Too
Mine is now 160/70 on 20mg telmisartan feeling like shit
And it was 160/110 before feeling way better
Click to expand...
Side note Reta has lowered my bp. Not exactly sure why or how but used to sit around 139 ive always had slightly elevated bp until now
 
R3gz said:
Side note Reta has lowered my bp. Not exactly sure why or how but used to sit around 139 ive always had slightly elevated bp until now
Click to expand...

Reta appears to be an effective anti inflammatory and they are doing trials on it for that purposes. Its actually why I am taking it over Tirz. It would make sense that by that virtue, it might lower your BP especially if you have high inflammation markers which is not unusual for body builders pounding tons of food, working out a lot, and injecting g's or AAS a week.
 
Ghoul said:
Within or not too far beyond physiological limits. The levels that produce significant anabolic results can make you ugly with long term use. This requires another commitment. To testing and managing IGF-1 / Z-score.
Click to expand...
I’d be interested to see my IGF-1 and choose a consistent 2–4 IU, but where I am i find it hard to justify the cost. US posters seem to have easier access to all sorts of combinations and single lab test - and maybe used to spending more money on extras! Making some assumptions here mind you.
 
Ghoul said:
Risk factors for kidney damage don’t add, they multiply. rHGH is one.

We seem to have a very high proportion of people with reduced kidney function on this forum for some reason…
Click to expand...
Yes absolutely. Btw i’m gonna used EPO and tried to reach 14g hemoglobin
Most nephrologists want me to staid at 10-12 g but feel lethargic when i’m that low
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Why do some people run growth hormone releasing peptides instead of HGH?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
5K
ParquetPatquet
P
Mushy404
Lose Skin: HGH/Secretagogues?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
Elektrobot
Elektrobot
S
My idea for 5th cycle
Replies
5
Views
101
Jaxino
J
dinfar1337
A comprenhensive tb500 frag thread
8 9 10
Replies
195
Views
5K
juicebro
J
S
New member learning about HGH and TRT
Replies
5
Views
265
sub10when
S

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top