I want to start HGH But I am Scared (Blood Tests Included)

[Docd187123]

Okay, sure, you're right. Greatness/effectiveness is solely determined by the speed in which it works... You've got it figured out, great! Effectiveness is determined by many other factors besides just at what rate you start to notice effects...

He never said other factors didn't matter, only that time did matter a lot.

You're determining what is fact now, huh? Wow. You truly have a comprehension problem, or are too fucking pigheaded to see it any other way.

Duh t3 at a replacement dose doesn't eat muscle, it's supposed to mimic natural levels....

Which is why he recommended a replacement dose of T3 in his first post. It will return a down regulated thyroid, due to dieting, back to normal without eating skeletal muscle tissue.

Dieting is NOT always a short term phase, maybe to you it is complicated to plan things out, or you're impatient and need your quick fix of fat loss. I, however, do not mind waiting a bit for things to take effect. If you were pre contest and had a few pounds to lose, GH wouldn't be a good option, I get it, thank you. But, if you wished to time your GH usage in advanced, before a cut, it would be a great addition for it's fat melting effects and anti-catabolic nature.

Dieting should be a sort term phase, well as short as possible. No reason to extend a diet longer than it needs to be. And by needing to time the GH months in advance of a cut, you just reiterated his point of its lack of efficacy due to how long it takes to work.

Please, do not tell me what I am and am not confusing, as I am not particularly confused at all. Do you genuinely believe that the introduction of high levels of GH cannot build muscle without AAS? Wow.... Gh -> IGF-1 (in case you're having trouble following along, IGF-1 builds muscle at an incredible rate, no exo. AAS needed).

Unfortunately this is wrong. IGF-1 is no incredible muscle builder. Neither is GH

"Despite the observations of an effect of GH and IGF-I on protein synthesis, the fact remains that gains in muscle mass are not observed in healthy subjects after long-term GH administration so any benefits are unlikely to be due to muscle mass gains. In the GH plus exercise groups, circulating IGF-I levels and fat-free mass were consistently increased in comparison to placebo groups. Thus, it is possible to Despite the observations of an effect of GH and IGF-I on protein synthesis, the fact remains that gains in muscle mass are not observed in healthy subjects after long-term GH administration so any benefits are unlikely to be due to muscle mass gains. In the GH plus exercise groups, circulating IGF-I levels and fat-free mass were consistently increased in comparison to placebo groups. Thus, it is possible to extrapolate that increasing circulating IGF-I would also be without consequence for muscle mass in healthy humans. Administration of IGF-I acutely activates muscle protein synthesis (Fryburg et al., 1995), but similarly to GH a 1-year administration did not result in increased lean body mass (Friedlander et al., 2001). The effects of GH on fat-free mass may be due to water retention, which is a known side effect of GH administration, or to an increase in soft tissue due to the stimulatory effects of GH on collagen synthesis.

Regulation of muscle mass by growth hormone and IGF-I

 

[Docd187123]

Insulin-like growth factor in muscle growth and its potential abuse by athletes
Gregory R Adams

Additional article information

In humans, the effects of attempts to augment muscle mass using IGF-I have been less dramatic. In studies designed to overcome the loss of muscle in the elderly, the overall effect of increasing circulating IGF-I levels experimentally has been negligible.2,3,4 In 1 study, the investigators managed to double the circulating IGF-I levels in elderly subjects but found no effect on the rate of protein synthesis in muscles and no augmentation of strength.4 In addition to this disappointing result, the supplementation of IGF-I in otherwise healthy—that is, GH-normal—people is associated with moderate-to-severe hypoglycemia (it is, after all, insulin-like),5 decreased GH secretion,6,7 a shift from lipid to carbohydrate oxidation for energy,7and a general disruption of the insulin-glucagon system.5,7 The issue of augmenting IGF-I is rendered even

Insulin-like growth factor in muscle growth and its potential abuse by athletes

 

[Wunderpus]

Now, this is largely an opinion, but I believe the effectiveness of a drug is also determined by it's safety,

Insulin-like growth factor in muscle growth and its potential abuse by athletes
Gregory R Adams

Additional article information

In humans, the effects of attempts to augment muscle mass using IGF-I have been less dramatic. In studies designed to overcome the loss of muscle in the elderly, the overall effect of increasing circulating IGF-I levels experimentally has been negligible.2,3,4 In 1 study, the investigators managed to double the circulating IGF-I levels in elderly subjects but found no effect on the rate of protein synthesis in muscles and no augmentation of strength.4 In addition to this disappointing result, the supplementation of IGF-I in otherwise healthy—that is, GH-normal—people is associated with moderate-to-severe hypoglycemia (it is, after all, insulin-like),5 decreased GH secretion,6,7 a shift from lipid to carbohydrate oxidation for energy,7and a general disruption of the insulin-glucagon system.5,7 The issue of augmenting IGF-I is rendered even

Insulin-like growth factor in muscle growth and its potential abuse by athletes

I don't have time to review this study, but I wonder what form of IGF1 they used? If it's pure IGF-1, it won't do shit as it's absorbed locally within 20 minutes.

 

[Docd187123]

Now, this is largely an opinion, but I believe the effectiveness of a drug is also determined by it's safety,

no, in a clinical setting effectiveness isn't determined by safety bc a drug can work extremely well at doing its intended job, it's very effective, but if it's safety profile or safety margin is too small, it's not "safe", it won't make it past clinical trials or it will only be does dined as a last resort depending upon the seriousness of the issue at hand.

I don't have time to review this study, but I wonder what form of IGF1 they used? If it's pure IGF-1, it won't do shit as it's absorbed locally within 20 minutes.

They gave them GH not pure IGF-1

 

[Wunderpus]

no, in a clinical setting effectiveness isn't determined by safety bc a drug can work extremely well at doing its intended job, it's very effective, but if it's safety profile or safety margin is too small, it's not "safe", it won't make it past clinical trials or it will only be does dined as a last resort depending upon the seriousness of the issue at hand.



They gave them GH not pure IGF-1

Oh, then yes that is perfectly in line with what we're talking about. If IGF-1 isn't such a great muscle builder, why to we strive to elevate our IGF-1 levels as much as possible?

 

[Docd187123]

Oh, then yes that is perfectly in line with what we're talking about. If IGF-1 isn't such a great muscle builder, why to we strive to elevate our IGF-1 levels as much as possible?

I don't strive to raise my IGF as high as possible. But the answer is probably like so many others, the bro science myths of BBing and the perpetuation of those myths. People read that IGF-1 plays a role in anabolic processes so therefor raising it as much as possible MUST be better regardless of what the evidence actually shows.

 

[MrRippedZilla]

Okay, sure, you're right. Greatness/effectiveness is solely determined by the speed in which it works... You've got it figured out, great! Effectiveness is determined by many other factors besides just at what rate you start to notice effects...

You're determining what is fact now, huh? Wow. You truly have a comprehension problem, or are too fucking pigheaded to see it any other way.

Duh t3 at a replacement dose doesn't eat muscle, it's supposed to mimic natural levels....

Dieting is NOT always a short term phase, maybe to you it is complicated to plan things out, or you're impatient and need your quick fix of fat loss. I, however, do not mind waiting a bit for things to take effect. If you were pre contest and had a few pounds to lose, GH wouldn't be a good option, I get it, thank you. But, if you wished to time your GH usage in advanced, before a cut, it would be a great addition for it's fat melting effects and anti-catabolic nature.

Please, do not tell me what I am and am not confusing, as I am not particularly confused at all. Do you genuinely believe that the introduction of high levels of GH cannot build muscle without AAS? Wow.... Gh -> IGF-1 (in case you're having trouble following along, IGF-1 builds muscle at an incredible rate, no exo. AAS needed).

Your reading comprehension sucks and/or your deliberately attempting to misquote me in an attempt to save face.
I didn't say that greatness was solely determined by speed, just that it plays a major role in this context.

In terms of me determining fact, if your referring to:
1) The level of importance I've given to the rate of fat loss achieved by these drugs, that comes directly from the researchers responsible for creating & studying them before they are approved for public use. So yes, its a fact.
2) The fact that GH doesn't cause muscle growth by itself, that comes from the scientific data taken as a whole - both me & Doc have shown you some of this data. It's also based on understanding skeletal muscle physiology so yes, it's another fact.

Lack of reading comprehension? Pigheaded?
Oh the irony...

Dieting is supposed to be a short term phase, whatever reasoning you have for not treating it as such is beyond my give-a-shit meter.
The fact that you've admitted that GH takes a while to work and requires proactive planning adds to my case of it being an ineffective, and inefficient, method for fat loss compared to clen & T3.

I apologize for not having the Zen like control in my responses that Doc has but my bullshit tolerance meter is very low. Especially for people who refuse to learn, as appears to be the case with you.

 

[Wunderpus]

I don't strive to raise my IGF as high as possible. But the answer is probably like so many others, the bro science myths of BBing and the perpetuation of those myths. People read that IGF-1 plays a role in anabolic processes so therefor raising it as much as possible MUST be better regardless of what the evidence actually shows.

It's interesting to me, and today I don't really have the cognitive function or ability - time wise - to do more research on a subject like this where it appears I have a huge misunderstanding of the actual core dynamics.

I do wonder, though, why about 98% of bb'ers in our community "chase" IGF-1? If it really isn't so powerful for muscle growth, what're we missing? What IS that powerful, if it isn't IGF-1? Are we, in essence, wasting our time with focusing on boosting and harboring IGF-1? This is a completely new and novel idea to me, that in which I would like to know a bit more about, as it sounds like there is something big here.

 

[Wunderpus]

Your reading comprehension sucks and/or your deliberately attempting to misquote me in an attempt to save face.
I didn't say that greatness was solely determined by speed, just that it plays a major role in this context.

In terms of me determining fact, if your referring to:
1) The level of importance I've given to the rate of fat loss achieved by these drugs, that comes directly from the researchers responsible for creating & studying them before they are approved for public use. So yes, its a fact.
2) The fact that GH doesn't cause muscle growth by itself, that comes from the scientific data taken as a whole - both me & Doc have shown you some of this data. It's also based on understanding skeletal muscle physiology so yes, it's another fact.

Lack of reading comprehension? Pigheaded?
Oh the irony...

Dieting is supposed to be a short term phase, whatever reasoning you have for not treating it as such is beyond my give-a-shit meter.
The fact that you've admitted that GH takes a while to work and requires proactive planning adds to my case of it being an ineffective, and inefficient, method for fat loss compared to clen & T3.

I apologize for not having the Zen like control in my responses that Doc has but my bullshit tolerance meter is very low. Especially for people who refuse to learn, as appears to be the case with you.

Doc and I go back and have coexisted for quite some time, we have no reason to be argumentative and have shown each other mutual respect for quite some time. I don't need to agree with him, and he doesn't need to with me, for us to get along. Frankly, he's not a cunt, you are. I hope that summarizes it. Also, I apologize for my brevity in this response, but frankly I guess I just don't care too much anymore about what you have to say. Doc, on the other hand, I do care about what he has to say.

 

[Dr JIM]

Clen is not as effective no. And with T3 you lose muscle while losing fat.

If the rest of Meso mates were as well informed as DD, I would have no purpose in being here, food for thought for all those Noobs who were "offended" by mean Dr Jim

 

[Dr JIM]

"Despite the observations of an effect of GH and IGF-I on protein synthesis, the fact remains that gains in muscle mass are not observed in healthy subjects after long-term GH administration so any benefits are unlikely to be due to muscle mass gains. In the GH plus exercise groups, circulating IGF-I levels and fat-free mass were consistently increased in comparison to placebo groups. Thus, it is possible to Despite the observations of an effect of GH and IGF-I on protein synthesis, the fact remains that gains in muscle mass are not observed in healthy subjects after long-term GH administration so any benefits are unlikely to be due to muscle mass gains. In the GH plus exercise groups, circulating IGF-I levels and fat-free mass were consistently increased in comparison to placebo groups. Thus, it is possible to extrapolate that increasing circulating IGF-I would also be without consequence for muscle mass in healthy humans. Administration of IGF-I acutely activates muscle protein synthesis (Fryburg et al., 1995), but similarly to GH a 1-year administration did not result in increased lean body mass (Friedlander et al., 2001). The effects of GH on fat-free mass may be due to water retention, which is a known side effect of GH administration, or to an increase in soft tissue due to the stimulatory effects of GH on collagen synthesis.

Regulation of muscle mass by growth hormone and IGF-I

Agreed but the limitation in the literature as it exists today, the evidence is generally confined to physiologic levels of GH and/or IGF.

That's not to suggest GH or IGF are "anabolic" at the level of AAS bc it's clear they are NOT.

GH alone pales in comparison to AAS as anabolic agents yet the
synergistic effects of AAS/GH/IGF must also be recognized.

Finally with respect to GH REDUCING TBF, (rather than simply INCREASING TBW)

I've heard similar
opposing views BUT the fact remains GH does increase Cyclic AMP (as do Thyroxine, Clen and Albuterol) the required metabolic pathway for lipolysis.

Regs
Jim

 

[Mr MASSE]

WTF?!

Why you all not trying to get big muscles with hard training and NOTHING ELSE?!
This is the truth of all guys here who don't get it!
What you need is AAS + HGH + Insulin + T3 or / and / T4 + Hard training + good meals + time to sleep + and again hard training!

If you can't get it to your fucking brain then I have the right conclusion for your ignorance!

Just do your thing, STAY NATURAL!
And there is nothing else to say!
Fucking Broh science!

 

[Dr JIM]

Doc and I go back and have coexisted for quite some time, we have no reason to be argumentative and have shown each other mutual respect for quite some time. I don't need to agree with him, and he doesn't need to with me, for us to get along. Frankly, he's not a cunt, you are. I hope that summarizes it. Also, I apologize for my brevity in this response, but frankly I guess I just don't care too much anymore about what you have to say. Doc, on the other hand, I do care about what he has to say.

Anyone can disagree with me but if they want to offer their OPINIONS as the only basis for the advice they offer others, then such suggestions should be supported with some degree of evidence based data, IMO.

With respect to some "chasing" their IGF levels, well many chase their E-2 also and you see how far I've gotten modifying that practice

I think some just need a real life outside the gym and PED forum.

 

[Dr JIM]

"Despite the observations of an effect of GH and IGF-I on protein synthesis, the fact remains that gains in muscle mass are not observed in healthy subjects after long-term GH administration so any benefits are unlikely to be due to muscle mass gains. In the GH plus exercise groups, circulating IGF-I levels and fat-free mass were consistently increased in comparison to placebo groups. Thus, it is possible to Despite the observations of an effect of GH and IGF-I on protein synthesis, the fact remains that gains in muscle mass are not observed in healthy subjects after long-term GH administration so any benefits are unlikely to be due to muscle mass gains. In the GH plus exercise groups, circulating IGF-I levels and fat-free mass were consistently increased in comparison to placebo groups. Thus, it is possible to extrapolate that increasing circulating IGF-I would also be without consequence for muscle mass in healthy humans. Administration of IGF-I acutely activates muscle protein synthesis (Fryburg et al., 1995), but similarly to GH a 1-year administration did not result in increased lean body mass (Friedlander et al., 2001). The effects of GH on fat-free mass may be due to water retention, which is a known side effect of GH administration, or to an increase in soft tissue due to the stimulatory effects of GH on collagen synthesis.

Regulation of muscle mass by growth hormone and IGF-I

To clarify my earlier post, although some of the enhanced LBM noted in those who have used supplemental GH in physiologic doses (this includes studies on elderly males who are said to have "adult onset GH hypo-secretion" occurs thru an absolute reduction of TBF and increased LBM.

However whether the latter is the result of enhanced "muscular bloat" or fluid retention is difficult to quantify or refute.

Excellent post Docd187123

 

[Kash89]

very good thread you guys, def learned something outta this, thanks

 

[Docd187123]

Doc and I go back and have coexisted for quite some time, we have no reason to be argumentative and have shown each other mutual respect for quite some time. I don't need to agree with him, and he doesn't need to with me, for us to get along. Frankly, he's not a cunt, you are. I hope that summarizes it. Also, I apologize for my brevity in this response, but frankly I guess I just don't care too much anymore about what you have to say. Doc, on the other hand, I do care about what he has to say.

I don't mean to jump in the middle of this as everyone is entitled to their own opinion and nobody is forced to get along but I would urge you NOT to discredit RippedZilla's posts. Not to say you guys should kiss and make up just that he IS a WEALTH of information. I've known him since 2013. When I can't find information I'm looking for, when I don't know an answer to a question, or when I'm just flat out too lazy or don't have the time to research something myself, RippedZilla is one of the people I turn to for answers or help finding what I need. The man studies the shit out of this game, nutrition, training, and hormones and always has references to studies when asked. Leaving my ego at the door, the man has probably forgotten more than I'll ever know. Again, this is not my business and you're free to do whatever you like, but it is my opinion that his information is worth listening to beef or no beef. With that said, I'll kindly remove myself from the middle of this lol.

 

[Docd187123]

To clarify my earlier post, although some of the enhanced LBM noted in those who have used supplemental GH in physiologic doses (this includes studies on elderly males who are said to have "adult onset GH hypo-secretion" occurs thru an absolute reduction of TBF and increased LBM.

However whether the latter is the result of enhanced "muscular bloat" or fluid retention is difficult to quantify or refute.

Excellent post Docd187123

Agreed, there's definite limitation in the research and my posts aren't to be taken as IGF plays no role in anabolism as it can activate or deactivate certain anabolic pathways but from my readings it's just not the muscle builder that anabolic androgenic steroids seem to be.

 

[Savagesteve]

Hello,
I want to start using HGH (2 iu/day) in my PCT for fat loss and for my next cycle. My father beat prostate cancer and i really freak out about cancer I did add (and translate to Eng.) my PRE Cycle blood tests in the attachment. SO i think i dont have a cancer But, do i need another tests before start to HGH or am i overthinking this????????
NOTE: Im 32 years old M

I like how this thread turned into the discussion of hgh, igf, aas, etc. and not once did anyone ask for stats, training, or diet details. This dude comes on here asking about using hgh for fat loss without mentioning anything about training or diet including daily macros.

 

[Docd187123]

I like how this thread turned into the discussion of hgh, igf, aas, etc. and not once did anyone ask for stats, training, or diet details. This dude comes on here asking about using hgh for fat loss without mentioning anything about training or diet including daily macros.

I don't think there's a need to ask for stats when as Dr. Jim stated, that if the side effects of AAS/HGH freak him out, he shouldn't touch them period?

 

[Savagesteve]

I don't think there's a need to ask for stats when as Dr. Jim stated, that if the side effects of AAS/HGH freak him out, he shouldn't touch them period?

Not going to disagree but there was many different drug options mentioned before this was stated.