Is HGH worth it?

[GuerillaPete]

I could be wrong also. Serostim was what I was referring to tho..

That is crazy i did not realize serostim is not the same as other pharma gh.
You are right i checked and its different from the e.coli method of manufacturing but the end result is the same so no need to titrate up again if both are accurately dosed .
Unless for precaution to see if you might have an allergic reaction and even so a week at lower dosages should do it than jump to regular dose.

 

[MB101]

That is crazy i did not realize serostim is not the same as other pharma gh.
You are right i checked and its different from the e.coli method of manufacturing but the end result is the same so no need to titrate up again if both are accurately dosed .
Unless for precaution to see if you might have an allergic reaction and even so a week at lower dosages should do it than jump to regular dose.

Appreciate it. That was kind of my thoughts but figured I’d ask. Better to be safe than sorry when introducing something new tho the differences are similar I guess. On a side note thx for sharing that video on the geno pens. That was a game changer for me.

 

[MaxLord]

I love hgh, I feel great on it and just all around better. Great pumps at the gym and amazing recovery!

 

[GuerillaPete]

I love hgh, I feel great on it and just all around better. Great pumps at the gym and amazing recovery!

I know me to but having high blood sugars is not good.
After meals you seem to have it under control its your fasted one that is the problem.
If you are hell bent on finishing the cycle with it try eating some low glycemic carbs before bed might be a temporary fix but you will have to cycle of at some point and regain your insulin sensitivity and give your body a break .

 

[MaxLord]

I know me to but having high blood sugars is not good.
After meals you seem to have it under control its your fasted one that is the problem.
If you are hell bent on finishing the cycle with it try eating some low glycemic carbs before bed might be a temporary fix but you will have to cycle of at some point and regain your insulin sensitivity and give your body a break .

Great advice thank you!

 

[GuerillaPete]

Great advice thank you!

Shit i messed up threads wanted to give this advice to another person with high fasting blood glucose in the morning. But you are welcome .

 

[JuG888]

In terms of longevity and as an investment I think GH is one of the best PEDs, not so much for short term gains as it is for long term saturated fibral muscle growth and connective tissue strength. I also notice it helps optimize my brain performance and I learn faster on it.

 

[clearheaded]

in terms of the science, no HGH does not make your life longer (aka longevity). more hgh means more IGF which means shorter the life, this is well documented plenty of research on humans and animals. But yes you will look better and feel better however it comes at expense of longevity, this is why we have evolved to lower hormones like HGH as we age so we dont die as fast, populations with less hgh and IGF live the longest re small Italians asians etc. body builders have high IGF from hgh and steroids and of course die much earlier than small asian people even though often eat VERY well and exercise regularly.

anti aging people actually try and keep IGF as low as possible in order to live longer.

im sure you knew that and meant "feel young" instead of longevity.

 

[GuerillaPete]

in terms of the science, no HGH does not make your life longer (aka longevity). more hgh means more IGF which means shorter the life, this is well documented plenty of research on humans and animals. But yes you will look better and feel better however it comes at expense of longevity, this is why we have evolved to lower hormones like HGH as we age so we dont die as fast, populations with less hgh and IGF live the longest re small Italians asians etc. body builders have high IGF from hgh and steroids and of course die much earlier than small asian people even though often eat VERY well and exercise regularly.

anti aging people actually try and keep IGF as low as possible in order to live longer.

im sure you knew that and meant "feel young" instead of longevity.

I don't think we evolve to live longer rather reproduce raise children and die .
You have less testosterone and growth hormone in nature you die quicker .
It medicine that keeps us alive .
People with medical care and low hormones live longer .
This are my opinions of course based on my observations .

 

[clearheaded]

there is a biological cost of HIGH hormone levels was the point, and u dont want to keep 15yo levels of hormones if goal is to live long.

and no, higher test, higher hgh for example increase IGF which of course decreases lifespan. ie smaller people live longer. increase IGF in mice they die faster very repeatedly.. If talk to anti aging they want low muscle mass low IGF in order to live longer. but yes a certain amount is needed to live half decently functional and ya if got chemically castrated and removed pineal u would waste away.

may be conflating healthy life style with hormone levels, ie if dont move, dont sleep, eat like crap and therefore have low test, than ya won't live as long..

Minireview: role of the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor system in mammalian aging - PubMed

The important role of IGF and insulin-related signaling pathways in the control of longevity of worms and insects is very well documented. In the mouse, several spontaneous or experimentally induced mutations that interfere with GH biosynthesis, GH actions, or sensitivity to IGF-I lead to...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

benefits of endocrine deficits.

Growth hormone, insulin and aging: the benefits of endocrine defects - PubMed

Longevity of mice can be increased by spontaneous or experimentally induced mutations that interfere with the biosynthesis or actions of growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), or insulin in the adipose tissue. The effects of GH resistance and deficiency of GH (along with...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Somatotropic signaling: trade-offs between growth, reproductive development, and longevity​

Somatotropic signaling: trade-offs between growth, reproductive development, and longevity - PubMed

Growth hormone (GH) is a key determinant of postnatal growth and plays an important role in the control of metabolism and body composition. Surprisingly, deficiency in GH signaling delays aging and remarkably extends longevity in laboratory mice. In GH-deficient and GH-resistant animals, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

end of the day its UBER complicated and even the papers discuss its still debatable mainly because hard to test in humans for a lifetime(esp healthy) I would assume aswell as not binary . but all mammal models show MORE hormones like GH IGF insulin decrease life. anyhoo, im not an endocrinologist, and SOO many things at play. Even now there is talk about maybe we don't want tooo much antioxidants as we actually need oxidation in order to kill off cancer. as with most things, balance is likely the answer, too high or too low is bad. imagine if had too low IGF/hormones wouldn't heal injuries for example and knees/hips/bonemass give out sooner, but will 'live' longer in a matrix cocoon .

basically all I was saying is the 120yo are not the 6foot 4, 250lbers.

 

[GuerillaPete]

there is a biological cost of HIGH hormone levels was the point, and u dont want to keep 15yo levels of hormones if goal is to live long.

and no, higher test, higher hgh for example increase IGF which of course decreases lifespan. ie smaller people live longer. increase IGF in mice they die faster very repeatedly.. If talk to anti aging they want low muscle mass low IGF in order to live longer. but yes a certain amount is needed to live half decently functional and ya if got chemically castrated and removed pineal u would waste away.

may be conflating healthy life style with hormone levels, ie if dont move, dont sleep, eat like crap and therefore have low test, than ya won't live as long..

Minireview: role of the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor system in mammalian aging - PubMed

The important role of IGF and insulin-related signaling pathways in the control of longevity of worms and insects is very well documented. In the mouse, several spontaneous or experimentally induced mutations that interfere with GH biosynthesis, GH actions, or sensitivity to IGF-I lead to...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

benefits of endocrine deficits.

Growth hormone, insulin and aging: the benefits of endocrine defects - PubMed

Longevity of mice can be increased by spontaneous or experimentally induced mutations that interfere with the biosynthesis or actions of growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), or insulin in the adipose tissue. The effects of GH resistance and deficiency of GH (along with...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Somatotropic signaling: trade-offs between growth, reproductive development, and longevity​

Somatotropic signaling: trade-offs between growth, reproductive development, and longevity - PubMed

Growth hormone (GH) is a key determinant of postnatal growth and plays an important role in the control of metabolism and body composition. Surprisingly, deficiency in GH signaling delays aging and remarkably extends longevity in laboratory mice. In GH-deficient and GH-resistant animals, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

end of the day its UBER complicated and even the papers discuss its still debatable mainly because hard to test in humans for a lifetime(esp healthy) I would assume aswell as not binary . but all mammal models show MORE hormones like GH IGF insulin decrease life. anyhoo, im not an endocrinologist, and SOO many things at play. Even now there is talk about maybe we don't want tooo much antioxidants as we actually need oxidation in order to kill off cancer. as with most things, balance is likely the answer, too high or too low is bad. imagine if had too low IGF/hormones wouldn't heal injuries for example and knees/hips/bonemass give out sooner, but will 'live' longer in a matrix cocoon .

basically all I was saying is the 120yo are not the 6foot 4, 250lbers.

That has nothing to do with evolution .
Its a luxury to live that long that a world of plenty brings to the table .
Decreasing levels of hormones are associated with longevity but not a because of evolution.
Your logic is flawed in many ways.
Without markets , hospital's ,medicine and resources people would not live that long and the association of declining hormones would be associated with rapid death.
This life style is available only for 500 years at most yet humans have lived a lot more than that more like 150000 years at least .
So you cant say hormones decline for us to live longer rather for us to take less risk and to stick around family to raise children.

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/KNj_nOXHsMc?feature=share

In a world with limited resources people who could not contribute died just imagine if resources where limited who would get the food 70-110 year old grandpa or the young child?

 

[clearheaded]

logic is not flawed and is outlined in the paper, everything in our biology is evolution.. there is a trade off of with high hormones ie evolved not just humans, mammals in general very much could produce alot of hormones constantly in fact we see such mutations happen all the time, BUT the disadvantage is clear and therefore selected against. without a wall of text you'll just have to know I am a scientist and have a degrees in science including biology.


I think your conflating technology/resources and living longer vs actual biology and true evolution like what separates us from reptiles or other vertebrates, and that there is a VERY good reason hormones lower after we finish growing(and why we don't continue to grow is also an evolutionary trait, some animals don't have that trait, therefore it is an evolution that separates us from reptiles even though we all came from the first vertebrates ie evolution), the reason of course is the biological cost of keeping high hormones which is shortening lifespan. this is not my theory but established in literature and again outlined partially in the paper I posted.

anyway, point still stands, higher hormones (for the most part) in human populations are linked to shorter lifespan. dont see giant viking people live to 120, but we do see more populations with less hormones ie asians live longer. this isn't some new idea big people die sooner, big people have higher hormones and as the paper lays out this comes at a biological cost (shorter life), yes exceptions, yes other reasons such as needing to grow fast quickly in order to survive, but there is a biology reason (ie evolution) that hormones get lower as we age and why we dont just keep growing. pretty amazing balance, and as we know large dogs usually die sooner and get cancer etc more often than smaller dogs..exceptions but in general this is the case.

reptiles continue to grow, but remember the oldest ones like tortoises have a way to slow metabolism aswell as grow VERY VERY slowly ie have low growth hormones. The final point is there is also a link between people who grow fast and go through puberty sooner (ie have higher hormones) tend to have the shorter lives. yes exceptions as many factors but in general humans that go through early puberty won't live as long which of course is based on hormones. I think we can agree the girls who get boobs in middle school by 35yo they usually aren't very pretty, vs those late bloomers that dont get hot until their 30s and age more gracefully into their 50s. not saying that looks equals longevity, but looks/skin/body composition is usually linked to health and why its attractive.

 

[GuerillaPete]

logic is not flawed and is outlined in the paper, everything in our biology is evolution.. there is a trade off of with high hormones ie evolved not just humans, mammals in general very much could produce alot of hormones constantly in fact we see such mutations happen all the time, BUT the disadvantage is clear and therefore selected against. without a wall of text you'll just have to know I am a scientist and have a degrees in science including biology.


I think your conflating technology/resources and living longer vs actual biology and true evolution like what separates us from reptiles or other vertebrates, and that there is a VERY good reason hormones lower after we finish growing(and why we don't continue to grow is also an evolutionary trait, some animals don't have that trait, therefore it is an evolution that separates us from reptiles even though we all came from the first vertebrates ie is evolution), the reason of course is the biological cost of keeping high hormones which is shortening lifespan. this is not my theory but established in literature and again outlined partially in the paper I posted.

anyway, point still stands, higher hormones (for the most part) in human populations are linked to shorter lifespan. dont see giant viking people live to 120, but we do see more populations with less hormones ie asians live longer. this isn't some new idea big people die sooner, big people have higher hormones and as the paper lays out this comes at a biological cost (shorter life), yes exceptions.

reptiles continue to grow, but remember the oldest ones like tortoises have a way to slow metabolism aswell as grow VERY VERY slowly ie have low growth hormones. The final point is there is also a link between people who grow fast and go through puberty sooner (ie have higher hormones) tend to have the shorter lives. yes exceptions as many factors but in general humans that go through early puberty won't live as long which of course is based on hormones. I think we can agree the girls who get boobs in middle school by 35yo they usually aren't very pretty, vs those late bloomers that dont get hot until their 30s and age more gracefully into their 50s. not saying that looks are linked to longevity, but looks/skin/body composition is usually are linked to health and why its attractive.

It does not make sense from an evolutional point of view to live longer if you cant reproduce at old age.
Because evolutional adaptations happen trough generations.
I think you are confusing correlation between low hormone levels and longevity with proof that its evolutionary.
This is simply disproved by the fact that people now live longer than 200 years ago because this time is not enough for evolutionary changes to happen its because of resources and medicine .

 

[clearheaded]

im not talking about how people live longer today than in 1900. the point was simple. high hormones come at a biological cost which also is longevity as stated in the paper I cited. I think perhaps are missing my point as keep talking about modern meds. perhaps you think I am saying people live longer now because of the drastic decrease in test and fertility in last 100 years? thats not what im saying. higher hormones come at a biological cost, so its built into us because of evolution that they decrease and aren't SUPER high for very long, more than one reason for this. long and short of it wether you agree or not on mechanism of WHY evolution happens or why levels change over time, the fact is higher hormones have a biological cost and whenever anything has a cost and/or benefit there is selection pressure for and against. but again, the simple point which you agreed with anyway is that higher hormones equal shorter lifespan. smaller people live longer smaller dogs live longer its pretty straight forward I think and nothing to do with modern meds other than yes can keep huge people alive longer than they would of 200 years ago.

 

[GuerillaPete]

im not talking about how people live longer today than in 1900. the point was simple. high hormones come at a biological cost which also is longevity as stated in the paper I cited. I think perhaps are missing my point as keep talking about modern meds. perhaps you think I am saying people live longer now because of the drastic decrease in test and fertility in last 100 years? thats not what im saying. higher hormones come at a biological cost, so its built into us because of evolution that they decrease and aren't SUPER high for very long, more than one reason for this. long and short of it wether you agree or not on mechanism of WHY evolution happens or why levels change over time, the fact is higher hormones have a biological cost and whenever anything has a cost and/or benefit there is selection pressure for and against. but again, the simple point which you agreed with anyway is that higher hormones equal shorter lifespan. smaller people live longer smaller dogs live longer its pretty straight forward I think and nothing to do with modern meds other than yes can keep huge people alive longer than they would of 200 years ago.

Tell me how long do turtles lay eggs in their life cycle?
How long are woman fertile?
Evolution happens for a reason nothing in nature is without a reason.What is the reason for a woman(they live longer) to live double the age of her fertile period ? What could cause that evolution?
Is low igf associates with diet or some local evolutionary trait?
If its about size ants should live longer than people?
But i get what you are saying in part and it is true now that Vikings live shorter life span than small men but that was not like that in the past when they died of because the Viking crushed they're skull.
Think about this and i don't want to continue this conversation lets just agree to disagree i just gave you some things to consider if you still think the same way its ok with me.

 

[hghlover]

Who cares if low hormone levels equates to more years. It's about QUALITY of life. I don't wanna be old but all broken up, weak, frail, dim witted and shitting my diapers.

Don't overdo it. Go for reasonable TRT doses and 3-4 iu HGH, the improved life quality is absolutely a fair trade off In my book.

 

[tuffie]

Are subscribers allowed to advertise their stuff on other threads?

How the fuck are you this skeptical about subs advertising but you posted about selling tramadol as a re-seller. EMO-MANLET-reseller?

Purple pandas raws and others recieved a ban. And this manlet continues ?

 

[Rido]

How the fuck are you this skeptical about subs advertising but you posted about selling tramadol as a re-seller. EMO-MANLET-reseller?

Purple pandas raws and others recieved a ban. And this manlet continues ?

I'm 5'10. Idk who you are calling ba manlet

 

[tuffie]

How about your answer the question. How can you be this paranoid about advertising a janoshik lab test, but you offered to sell tramadol. Cant read english?

Why does this guy get a pass and other members get a ban?

Your post was up for more than 10hrs. You can only lie if you didnt re-sell any tramadol. You offered it as a product to be sold.

 

[Rido]

How about your answer the question. How can you be this paranoid about advertising a janoshik lab test, but you offered to sell tramadol. Cant read english?

I'm not selling that stuff.

I was asking because the rules weren't clearly stated for posting lab results. It was already clarified by the admin a long time ago. Thsnks

But I appreciate your concern.