HGH -- What do the results look like?

[Photon]

what im getting out of this discussion is
IM= higher,quicker peak;shorter duration
SQ= Lower, slower peak, longer duration; similar total bioavailability and clinical effect,,

IM - higher bioavability, higher GH peak, shorter duration thus lower IGF levels (~10%)
SUBQ - lower bioavability, lower GH peak, longer duration thus higher IGF levels

There are both benefits to be gained from both GH and IGF, tho GH does convert to IGF.

 

[Ateam2023]

IM - higher bioavability, higher GH peak, shorter duration thus lower IGF levels (~10%)
SUBQ - lower bioavability, lower GH peak, longer duration thus higher IGF levels

There are both benefits to be gained from both GH and IGF, tho GH does convert to IGF.

i can't find ANY information actually confirming that im has a greater bioavailability compared to sub q, it appears (from my research) the main difference is the speed and curve of absorption, and not necessarily the total amount of absorption, alot of conflicting information

 

[Photon]

i can't find ANY information actually confirming that im has a greater bioavailability compared to sub q, it appears (from my research) the main difference is the speed and curve of absorption, and not necessarily the total amount of absorption, alot of conflicting information

There's also this here, which is what intrigues me.
1.5x-2x higher GH AUC at a cost of ~10% IGF.

Post in thread 'Sigma Audley Inc. - Your source for peptides, ancillaries, AAS, and more!'

Jun 27, 2025

IM thigh, occasionally I’ll go subq, 195, 4%BF.

Your numbers aligned closely with the results of a paper I read recently, which is why I suspected you injected IM.

In a study of trained, lean athletes, IM produced GH peaks more than 2.5x higher than SubQ at the same dose. This was with doses similar to PED use, not the low medical GH replacement doses.

Numbers are given as Mean (Minimum / Maximum).



Area under the curve (total exposure to GH) IM was from 1.5x to 2x higher than SubQ. From what I understand, this significantly boosts GH's fat loss and cognitive...

• Ghoul

• 

 

[Ghoul]

Which means, in theory, you can use 10% more GH, inject IM, and have the same chance/rate of acromegaly as one who does this subQ, while reaping the extra benefits from the higher GH levels due to greater bioavability.

Yes but there are a lot of moving parts here.

GH to IGF conversion drops with long term rHGH use. So you lose more of the anabolic benefits of IGF.

Even if IGF stays the same IGFBP-3 can increase reducing bioavailability of IGF.

At the same time, fat cell sensitivity to GH drops, blunting fat loss (especially subQ fat). Acromegaly patients eventually start accumulating significant subcutaneous fat.

The things that maintain / restore GH receptor sensitivity in fat pretty much matches anything that reduces insulin resistance, ie, Metformin, GLPs Telmisartan etc. Should be managing insulin resistance if you're on long term rHGH anyway.

Testosterone boosts GH receptor density in cells restoring sensitivity. making to easier to burn fat off with rHGH.

Another way to restore sensitivity after hitting the rHGH fat loss plateau is to take a break, cycle with a couple days off a week, or temporarily switch to a growth hormone releasing hormone like Tesamorelin. The natural pulse release of GH using a GHRH prevents insensitivity from developing.

 

[AlexDavis43]

GH is the primary driver of sodium retention, and therefore bloat / edema.

For anyone else reading this, so you don't go around repeating nonsense just bc you read it online: GH causes sodium retention but is absolutely not from the primary driver (see aldosterone, angiotensin II, & ADH)

 

[Ghoul]

what im getting out of this discussion is
IM= higher,quicker peak;shorter duration
SQ= Lower, slower peak, longer duration; similar total bioavailability and clinical effect,,
bioavailability is determined by the total amount of hormone absorbed into the bloodstream "over time", and not just by "peak concentration",

That would've been my assumption as well.

This is an abbreviated version of the discussion that started in the SSA thread.

In that study. area under the curve, ie, GH "total exposure", is significantly higher with IM than SubQ, which surprised me.

Total exposure to IGF is reduced slightly with IM vs SubQ, but nowhere near the increase in GH exposure. So the net result appears to be "more" of a total impact, slanted toward significantly more GH receptor effects (like lipolysis) , at the expense of lower IGF effects (anabolic).

Obviously there's a lot of factors involved, this is a small study etc etc, but I'm not away of any clearer view we've had of supraphysiological doses in healthy athletic subjects directly comparing IM to SubQ.

Post in thread 'Sigma Audley Inc. - Your source for peptides, ancillaries, AAS, and more!'

Jun 27, 2025

IM thigh, occasionally I’ll go subq, 195, 4%BF.

Your numbers aligned closely with the results of a paper I read recently, which is why I suspected you injected IM.

In a study of trained, lean athletes, IM produced GH peaks more than 2.5x higher than SubQ at the same dose. This was with doses similar to PED use, not the low medical GH replacement doses.

Numbers are given as Mean (Minimum / Maximum).



Area under the curve (total exposure to GH) IM was from 1.5x to 2x higher than SubQ. From what I understand, this significantly boosts GH's fat loss and cognitive...

• Ghoul

• 

 

[Ateam2023]

That would've been my assumption as well.

This is an abbreviated version of the discussion that started in the SSA thread.

In that study. area under the curve, ie, GH "total exposure", is significantly higher with IM than SubQ, which surprised me.

Total exposure to IGF is reduced slightly with IM vs SubQ, but nowhere near the increase in GH exposure. So the net result appears to be "more" of a total impact, slanted toward significantly more GH receptor effects (like lipolysis) , at the expense of lower IGF effects (anabolic).

Obviously there's a lot of factors involved, this is a small study etc etc, but I'm not away of any clearer view we've had of supraphysiological doses in healthy athletic subjects directly comparing IM to SubQ.

Post in thread 'Sigma Audley Inc. - Your source for peptides, ancillaries, AAS, and more!'

Jun 27, 2025

IM thigh, occasionally I’ll go subq, 195, 4%BF.

Your numbers aligned closely with the results of a paper I read recently, which is why I suspected you injected IM.

In a study of trained, lean athletes, IM produced GH peaks more than 2.5x higher than SubQ at the same dose. This was with doses similar to PED use, not the low medical GH replacement doses.

Numbers are given as Mean (Minimum / Maximum).



Area under the curve (total exposure to GH) IM was from 1.5x to 2x higher than SubQ. From what I understand, this significantly boosts GH's fat loss and cognitive...

• Ghoul

• 

so now iwonder how morning im bolus , would compare to sub q bolus ??

 

[Ghoul]

so now iwonder how morning im bolus , would compare to sub q bolus ??

I've spent hours looking at every angle of this, running it through simulations, comparing to the very few studies using healthy subjects, and, of course, it's complicated.

The takeaway I've come up with is that from the GH receptor mediated effect perspective, like fat loss. skin / tissue repair, immune system boost, cognitive / mood boost, for all intents and purposes an IM dose acts like 2x the same dose subQ.

It acts like slightly less than the subQ dose for IGF mediated effects like anabolic muscle mass increase and repair.

So 4iu IM would look like the equivalent of SubQ:

8iu: GH effects
3.6iu: IGF effects

Sides would be similar to 8iu subQ, since rHGH sides are caused mostly by GH.

While I'm sure there are many more
nuances this is probably the most significant: lipolysis in healthy young men seems to max out around 3iu. With age, insulin resistance, fibrosis, and other damage "stubborn fat" requires more GH to release FFAs. 5iu+.

Lipolysis won't double because it'll max out first, but other effects aren't capped like skin / tissue repair.

If the primary goal is muscle mass / repair, subQ would be a little more efficient at boosting IGF exposure (at the same dose as IM). You could increase the IM dose 10% to compensate.

The 10% IM IGF AUC (total exposure) loss may be because the much higher GH spike causes receptors on the liver to downregulate making IGF conversion less efficient. But it's more important we know that it happens, from the Keller clinical study, than why it happens,

It still looks like IM is all upside unless you need to squeeze every drop of anabolism out of a dose, or get intolerable sides from the higher GH exposure. Except that it's a daily IM injection.... 30g 1/2" is easy though.

Unfortunately no long term studies on clinical outcomes using IM vs SubQ to confirm all this. The ones that come close focus on IGF levels and growth in short stature children, and they're similar with both.

 

[Ghoul]

I just happen to be using 4iu now and will be getting labs soon. I'll switch to IM for a month, same batch, retest and we'll see what difference it makes.

 

[dinfar1337]

I've spent hours looking at every angle of this, running it through simulations, comparing to the very few studies using healthy subjects, and, of course, it's complicated.

The takeaway I've come up with is that from the GH receptor mediated effect perspective, like fat loss. skin / tissue repair, immune system boost, cognitive / mood boost, for all intents and purposes an IM dose acts like 2x the same dose subQ.

It acts like slightly less than the subQ dose for IGF mediated effects like anabolic muscle mass increase and repair.

So 4iu IM would look like the equivalent of SubQ:

8iu: GH effects
3.6iu: IGF effects

Sides would be similar to 8iu subQ, since rHGH sides are caused mostly by GH.

While I'm sure there are many more
nuances this is probably the most significant: lipolysis in healthy young men seems to max out around 3iu. With age, insulin resistance, fibrosis, and other damage "stubborn fat" requires more GH to release FFAs. 5iu+.

Lipolysis won't double because it'll max out first, but other effects aren't capped like skin / tissue repair.

If the primary goal is muscle mass / repair, subQ would be a little more efficient at boosting IGF exposure (at the same dose as IM). You could increase the IM dose 10% to compensate.

The 10% IM IGF AUC (total exposure) loss may be because the much higher GH spike causes receptors on the liver to downregulate making IGF conversion less efficient. But it's more important we know that it happens, from the Keller clinical study, than why it happens,

It still looks like IM is all upside unless you need to squeeze every drop of anabolism out of a dose, or get intolerable sides from the higher GH exposure. Except that it's a daily IM injection.... 30g 1/2" is easy though.

Unfortunately no long term studies on clinical outcomes using IM vs SubQ to confirm all this. The ones that come close focus on IGF levels and growth in short stature children, and they're similar with both.

with this, its safe to assume even though im is worse than subq, subq with a split dose 2x daily is better than one big bolus. since you're getting a better igf-1 response for more total hgh to be absorbed by our liver and mimick natural gh pulses.

although you're risking more insulin resistance if our means have been exhausted with glps/berberine/telsmirtan it seems its really only plausible to delve into this using higher hgh dosages + insulin. maybe even splitting our hgh dosages even more up through the day and think like 8iu + 8iu + 8iu

 

[brutalbuilt]

under 10iu is a waste of money for bodybuilding

 

[Ghoul]

under 10iu is a waste of money for bodybuilding

Depends on IGF response right? Like the hyperresponder on 5iu with IGF 675 is gtg, but someone else might need 15iu to get there.

I've seen a few places saying there's nothing to gain past 600-700. No idea if that's accurate. I don't recall anyone reporting an IGF much higher than that here.

 

[Ghoul]

with this, its safe to assume even though im is worse than subq, subq with a split dose 2x daily is better than one big bolus. since you're getting a better igf-1 response for more total hgh to be absorbed by our liver and mimick natural gh pulses.

although you're risking more insulin resistance if our means have been exhausted with glps/berberine/telsmirtan it seems its really only plausible to delve into this using higher hgh dosages + insulin. maybe even splitting our hgh dosages even more up through the day and think like 8iu + 8iu + 8iu

Yeah nothing seems to work as well with constant exposure to GH vs pulses.

National Institutes of Health just finished a 17 year study last week. They used a pump to inject pulses of Norditropin rHGH to see if they could basically reverse aging. improve the immune system and metabolic markers without increasing insulin resistance.

Haven't published the results yet:

ClinicalTrials.gov

www.clinicaltrials.gov

It's coming. I'd bet within a year someone here will be using a pump for rHGH. These tiny 3ml "pump patches" are intended for insulin, but they can inject any peptide / protein:

 

[brutalbuilt]

Depends on IGF response right? Like the hyperresponder on 5iu with IGF 675 is gtg, but someone else might need 15iu to get there.

I've seen a few places saying there's nothing to gain past 600-700. No idea if that's accurate. I don't recall anyone reporting an IGF much higher than that here.

i dont pay attention to igf scores it only shows serum not whats in muscle which what we actually want for muscle growth

either way even if you are a good responder 10iu is still better than less

 

[CarvinDC125]

3 IU is closer to an "anti-aging" dose, not a body recomp or recovery dose

Depending on how much body fat you have to lose, a GLP1 will get you much further than GH (if it's a lot of fat, may consider tirz instead of reta)

I think it really depends on the person. I know people that get carpal tunnel issues with anything over 3ius.
Here’s what one year at 3ius nightly GH has done for me.

 

[Ateam2023]

I think it really depends on the person. I know people that get carpal tunnel issues with anything over 3ius.
Here’s what one year at 3ius nightly GH has done for me.

you know i used hgh as my sole fat burner (besides cardio) during a 2 year calorie defecit/fat loss ,recomp , phase, and if i had to do it all over again , i would have DEFINITELY incorporated a Glp1 without a second thought, ,

 

[Ghoul]

rHGH and GLP are perfectly synergistic.

GH mobilizes free fatty acids, releasing them from fat cells and into circulation.

GLP helps maintain a significant calorie deficit it so those FFAs are more likely to be used for fuel than redeposited back into fat.

GH worsens insulin resistance.

GLP improves insulin resistance.

GLP can cause skin sagging (like any weight loss, but worse looking because it's sudden). Some may never snap back due to loss of elasticity.

GH restores skin elasticity, significantly, visibly, when you need it most. No other treatment I'm aware of comes close.

 

[CarvinDC125]

rHGH and GLP are perfectly synergistic.

GH mobilizes free fatty acids, releasing them from fat cells and into circulation.

GLP helps maintain a significant calorie deficit it so those FFAs are more likely to be used for fuel than redeposited back into fat.

GH worsens insulin resistance.

GLP improves insulin resistance.

GLP can cause skin sagging (like any weight loss, but worse looking because it's sudden). Some may never snap back due to loss of elasticity.

GH restores skin elasticity, significantly, visibly, when you need it most. No other treatment I'm aware of comes close.

Agreed. I did Tirzepatide with GH for 5 months. It was incredible.

 

[Eddie.]

Depends on IGF response right? Like the hyperresponder on 5iu with IGF 675 is gtg, but someone else might need 15iu to get there.

I've seen a few places saying there's nothing to gain past 600-700. No idea if that's accurate. I don't recall anyone reporting an IGF much higher than that here.

Do you find IGF serum reading to be that accurate regarding HGH working or not? I mean, i know it's one of the 2 available ways to measure HGH but there are cases who used 18IU serostim and their IGF serum was below 200. Yet the physique had a significant improvement. And vice versa, guys with 2-3 IU getting absurdly high IGF readings.

 

[AlexDavis43]

Do you find IGF serum reading to be that accurate regarding HGH working or not? I mean, i know it's one of the 2 available ways to measure HGH but there are cases who used 18IU serostim and their IGF serum was below 200. Yet the physique had a significant improvement. And vice versa, guys with 2-3 IU getting absurdly high IGF readings.

IGF1 responses are all over the board

Changes in physique are subject to many factors... despite people swearing they only changed ONE variable xD