HGH Your thoughts
I have been toying with this idea for sometime and after some recent events may have been backed into a corner to try this. I was wondering if anyone here has had it and if they got good results from it without stacking it with anything else and at what dosages. I am 6'2 115kg most likely about 12% b/f and am now a big fan of enathate. The prime reason for using them is more for strength rather that gaing size. Although at this size i find it hard to put much more wieght on (allthough i would like to) So please give me your thoughts Pm me if you would prefer. Thanks guys
From what i have read, its no wonder drug. And if it is gonna be used for a limited period of time (llike with aas cycling) then it is a complete waste of time and money. I think it has to be in the system for a long time. Someone can correct me if im wrong.
heres an article i hav on HDD , got others but this is informative enuff its from a persons perspective Growth Hormone vs. Testosterone: A Retrospective Based on the Latest Research by Karlis Ullis, MD with Josh Shackman, MA I was one of the first private practitioners in the country to dispense growth hormone as part of an overall anti-program hormone replacement program for adults that fit the criteria of the "Adult Onset Growth Hormone Deficiency Syndrome". Like many other anti-aging physicians, I was extremely impressed by the initial research on growth hormone showing dramatic improvements in body composition, kidney function, skin, mood, well being, etc. I have been a member of the Growth Hormone Research Society for many years and have closely followed all the latest research on growth hormone and other adult hormone replacement therapies. As the number of studies on growth hormone as well as testosterone has piled up since I first began prescribing testosterone, I believe now is the time to look back at the research and see if growth hormone and testosterone have lived up to their promises. It is well established in bodybuilding circles that testosterone is superior to growth hormone for gaining muscle. However, growth hormone still is enormously popular and generally has a better reputation than testosterone both in bodybuilding and in anti-aging circles. The general impression is that testosterone will make you big, but at the price of acne, puffiness, temper tantrums, prostate enlargement, and possibly "gyno". Well it is acknowledged that growth hormone is not as anabolic as testosterone, people still think of growth hormone as a hormone that will make you lean and toned with almost no side effects. Growth hormone also has a reputation as being the "fountain of youth" among anti-aging enthusiasts, whereas testosterone is still considered somewhat dangerous. The purpose of this article is to see how the research on testosterone and growth hormone from the last few years has supported or disputed the public’s view of these two hormones. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which is Better for Body Composition? New research has shed some light on the anabolic effects of growth hormone. Several studies in the past have shown an increase in lean body mass in subjects taking growth hormone. However, lean body mass does not necessarily mean muscle, but anything that is not fat and this includes water, organ tissue growth, bone mass, and connective tissue growth. My friend Michael Mooney (author of Built to Survive and editor of the Medibolics Newsletter) has helped publicize the fact that not much, if any, of the lean mass gained while on growth hormone is actually muscle. One recent study on HIV positive test subjects showed no significant change in skeletal muscle mass after taking six milligrams (about 18 units) per day of growth hormone for 12 weeks.(1) Another study, also on HIV positive test subjects, also showed a lack of muscle growth when doses of nine milligrams (roughly 27 units) per day were given.(2) Keep in mind that HIV positive individuals are often suffering from muscle wasting conditions, which should make them more responsive to any possible anabolic effects of growth hormone. Growth hormone is probably equally ineffective in healthy individuals. One study on young (aged 22-33), highly trained athletes did show a significant increase in lean mass after six weeks of taking 2.67 milligrams (about 8 units) per day.(3) However this increase was only 4%, and may have not included any muscle mass at all. It seems overwhelming clear that growth hormone is either non-anabolic or very weakly anabolic for skeletal muscle when taken by itself, and it definitely not worth the large price if you are taking it solely for gaining muscle. The only real use in gaining muscle may be as a synergistic agent with testosterone. A synergistic effect of taking growth hormone with testosterone has been reported for increases in lean mass, but further research needs to be done to see if this synergistic effects holds for skeletal muscle. Keep in mind that some increases in lean mass are not desirable. Growing some organs too big such as kidneys can produce some embarrassing effects seen in some professional bodybuilders. You do not want your "guts" sticking blatantly out of your body. But enough on growth hormone for muscle gain. For information, see Bryan Haycock’s article in this issue or go to Michael Mooney’s web site. If you are going to spend the money on growth hormone to try to improve your body, your best bet is to use it as a fat loss or "sculpting" agent. The previously mentioned study with growth hormone on trained athletes did show an impressive 12% decrease in bodyfat. So well it is well established that testosterone is far, far better for building muscle than growth hormone, is growth hormone the better choice for fat loss? The research on this issue is mixed, and there is no easy answer to this question. One recent study put growth hormone head to head with testosterone and measured its effects on fat loss. In this study, men on growth hormone lost an average of 13% of their bodyfat compared to 5.8% in the group taking testosterone.(4) But before you jump to conclusions, there are a couple of reasons why this study doesn’t settle the question. For one thing, this study was on very old individuals (aged 65 to 88) who had low IGF-1 and testosterone levels. Another problem is that the doses of the hormones haven’t been reported yet (the study is only in abstract form right now) which also makes the comparison difficult to make. Most interesting about this study was that a synergistic effect was found in a group taking both testosterone and growth hormone, as they lost an average of 21% of their bodyfat. This is more than the averages of the testosterone alone and growth hormone alone groups combined. Not all studies have shown this dramatic of an effect on body fat. One study using fairly large doses (adjusted by weight, but roughly 5 mg per day) on obese women failed to show any significant effects on body fat.(5) The growth hormone group lost less than two pounds more than the placebo group over a one month period. The main significant result was that the growth hormone group lost much less lean mass (an average loss of 1.52 kg compared to 3.79 in the placebo). While this may seem impressive, the same results could be achieved with a caffeine/ephedrine formula at a fraction of the price. While there are a good number of studies showing growth hormone to be effective for fat loss, testosterone may be almost as good for this purpose. Testosterone was recently found to be effective for fat loss in young men even in small doses. One recent study showed that men given only 100 milligrams per week of Testosterone Enanthate lost an average of six percent of their bodyfat after eight weeks.(6) 100 mg per week is generally considered a very low dose by bodybuilding standards. Most impressive about this study was that the result was obtained in young, normal healthy men (aged 18 to 45), not obese or testosterone deficient. Most of the studies showing positive effects with hormone replacement therapy are on subjects who are obese or hormone deficient – i.e. the very subjects most likely to respond. While the amount of muscle gain reported in this study was not reported (it is still just in abstract form), another study showed 100 mg per week of testosterone enanthate was not anabolic.(7) It appears that testosterone has a strong mechanism for fat loss other than increased metabolic rate from increased muscle. Considering how much cheaper testosterone is than growth hormone, it may well be the cost-effective choice for burning fat even if it is slightly less effective overall. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Safety of Growth Hormone and Testosterone Testosterone is widely believed to be far more dangerous than growth hormone. However, recent research is rapidly showing that much of these dangers have been exaggerated. For instance, the hypothesis that testosterone causes prostate cancer has never been established. In fact, one study even showed a slight negative correlation between testosterone levels and prostate cancer! A study on young men given supraphysiologic doses of testosterone showed no change is prostate specific antigen (PSA), which is one measure of prostate cancer risk.(8) Growth hormone may also be less dangerous to the prostate than previously believed. One study showed strong positive correlation with prostate cancer and IGF-1 levels.(9) Since growth hormone stimulates IGF-1 synthesis in the liver, this study and others bring up the possibility of a link of growth hormone and prostate and breast cancer. Keep in mind that statistical correlations do not necessarily prove causality, i.e. IGF-1 has not yet been proven to be a cancer-causing villain. Actually IGF-11 may be one of the culprits in the cancer story, and not IGF-1. At the Serano sponsored Symposia on the Endocrinology of Aging in October, 1999 and at the Endocrine Society Meeting in June, 1999 there was an informal consensus that patients on growth hormone did not increase their risk of breast or prostate cancer. Several other recent studies have also cast doubt on the role of growth hormone as a cancer-causing villain. Testosterone may have also gotten a bad rap for its effects on blood lipids. Since testosterone and other anabolic steroids have been shown in some studies to lower HDL cholesterol levels, it was believed that testosterone may increase the risk for heart disease. This was refuted in one recent study on testosterone that showed some positive results. A study on 21 hypogonadal men (aged 36 to 57) showed a replacement dose of testosterone using the Androderm transdermal patch to reduce blood clotting.(9) While HDL levels did drop slightly, blood coagulability is believed to be the more important marker of heart disease risk. Another study showed a very strong negative correlation with testosterone levels and heart disease. Growth hormone has shown mixed results on its effects on heart disease risk. One study on elderly men and women (aged 65-88) showed that growth hormone administration to lower LDL levels, but raised triglyceride levels.(10) Since high LDL and triglyceride levels are considered measures of heart disease risk, growth hormone’s effects on heart disease risk are ambiguous. However, long-term use of growth hormone as been shown to decrease the thickness of the carotid artery lining – i.e. increased room for blood flow. While much more research needs to be done, I am convinced right now that testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men may be safer than excessively large doses of growth hormone. The long-term studies have not yet been done to test the true long-term effects of these hormones, but the research seems quite clear at the moment. Michael Mooney has reported similar results on safety and side effects of these hormones: While none of the studies on testosterone or anabolic steroids used for HIV have documented any significant health problems associated with their proper therapeutic use, Dr. Gabe Torres' data on his patients who experienced a reduction in symptoms of HIV-related lipodystrophy with Serostim growth hormone showed that at the standard 5 and 6 mg doses, 80 percent of his HIV patients experienced significant side effects, that included elevated glucose, elevated pancreatic enzymes, or carpal tunnel syndrome. (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion Don’t get me wrong – I still use both growth hormone and testosterone as part of overall anti-aging programs in my patients. This article is not meant to say one hormone is "good" and another is "bad". It is just my opinion at the moment that the overall benefit/cost ratio for improving body composition is higher with testosterone than growth hormone. By cost, I mean both the monetary price – testosterone is far cheaper than growth hormone, and the side effect/safety profile – testosterone is safer than high-dose growth hormone use. Since growth hormone is extremely expensive and perhaps riskier than testosterone, I screen patients very carefully and only recommend it to those who either have very low IGF-1 levels and fail growth hormone stimulation tests, or those who have failed to respond to testosterone or other therapies. The new research has also made me confident in encouraging more and more patients to go on testosterone. However, we must keep constant track of the new research to better refine both anti-aging and bodybuilding programs. The science of hormone supplementation is still in its infancy, and there is still a lot more questions that need to be answered. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Mooney, Michael, HIV Study Shows No Muscle Growth From Serostim Growth Hormone, Medibolics, July, 1999 2. Yarasheski KE; Campbell JA; Smith K; Rennie MJ; Holloszy JO; Bier DM. Am J Physiol Effect of growth hormone and resistance exercise on muscle growth in young men. Am J Physiol, 262(3 Pt 1):E261-7 1992 Mar 3. Crist DM, et al. Body composition response to exogenous GH during training in highly conditioned adults. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Aug;65(2):579-84. 4. Blackman, MR, et al. Effects of growth hormone and/or sex steroid administration on body composition in healthy elderly women and men, Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California 5. Tagliaferri M, et al. Metabolic effects of biosynthetic growth hormone treatment in severely energy-restricted obese women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Sep;22(9):836-41. 6. Anawalt, BD, et al. Testosterone administration to normal men decreases truncal and total body fat . Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California 7. Friedl KE, et al. Comparison of the effects of high dose testosterone and 19-nortestosterone to a replacement dose of testosterone on strength and body composition in normal men. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1991;40(4-6):607-12 8. Cooper, C.S., MacIndoe, J.H., Perry, P.J., Yates, W.R. and Williams, R.D.: The effect of exogenous testosterone on total and free prostate specific antigen levels in healthy young men. J Urol, 156:438, 1996. 9. Wallace, J., et. al (1998) Growth Hormone and IGF Res (abstract) 8(4): 329, 348 10. Christmas, C. et al, Effects of growth hormone and/or sex steroid administration on serum lipid profiles in healthy elderly women and men, Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California
heres anotha on just hgh learner202 In the human body growth hormone is produced by the pituitary gland. It exists at especially high levels during adolescence when it promotes the growth of tissues, protein deposition and the breakdown of subcutaneous fat stores. Upon maturation endogenous levels of GH decrease, but remain present in the body at a substantially lower level. In the body the actual structure of growth hormone is a sequence of 191 amino acids. Once scientists isolated this hormone, many became convinced it would exhibit exceptional therapeutic properties. It would be especially effective in cases of pituitary deficient dwarfism, the drug perhaps restoring much linear growth if administered during adolescence. he 1980's brought about the first prepared drugs containing Human Growth Hormone. The content was taken from a biological origin, the hormone being extracted from the pituitary glands of human corpses then prepared as a medical injection. This production method was short lived however, since it was linked to the spread of a rare and fatal brain disease. Today virtually all forms of HGH are synthetically manufactured. The recombinant DNA process is very intricate; using transformed e-coli bacterial or mouse cell lines to genetically produce the hormone structure. It is highly unlikely you will ever cross the old biologically active item on the black market (such as Grorm), as all such products should now be discontinued. Here in the United States two distinctly structured compounds are being manufactured for the pharmaceutical market. The item Humatrope by Eli Lilly Labs has the correct 191 amino acid sequence while Genentech's Protropin has 192. This extra amino acid slightly increases the chance for developing an antibody reaction to the growth hormone. The 191 amino acid configuration is therefore considered more reliable, although the difference is not great. Protropin is still Anabolics 2002 considered an effective product and is prescribed regularly. Outside of the U.S., the vast majority of HGH in circulation will be the correct 191 amino acid sequence so this distinction is not a great a concern. The use of growth hormone has been increasing in popularity among athletes, due of course to the numerous benefits associated with use. To begin with, GH stimulates growth in most body tissues, primarily due to increases in cell number rather than size. This includes skeletal muscle tissue, and with the exception of eyes and brain all other body organs. The transport of amino acids is also increased, as is the rate of protein synthesis. All of these effect are actually mediated by IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor), a highly anabolic hormone produced in the liver and other tissues in response to growth hormone (peak levels of IGF-1 are noted approximately 20 hours after HGH administration). Growth hormone itself also stimulated triglyceride hydrolysis in adipose tissue, usually producing notable fat loss during treatment. GH also increases glucose output in the liver, and induces insulin resistance by blocking the activity of this hormone in target cells. A shift is seen where fats become a more primary source of fuel, further enhancing body fat loss. Its growth promoting effect also seems to strengthen connective tissues, cartilage and tendons. This effect should reduce the susceptibility to injury (due to heavy weight training), and increase lifting ability (strength). HGH is also a safe drug for the "piss-test". Although its use is banned by athletic committees, there is no reliable detection method. This makes clear its attraction to (among others) professional bodybuilders, strength athletes and Olympic competitors, who are able to use this drug straight through a competition. There is talk however that a reliable test for the exogenous administration of growth hormone has been developed, and is close to being implemented. Until this happens, growth hormone will remain a highly sought after drug for the tested athlete. But the degree in which HGH actually works for an athlete has been the topic of a long running debate. Some claim it to be the holy grail of anabolics, capable of amazing things. Able to provide incredible muscle growth and unbelievable fat loss in a very short period of time. Since it is used primarily by serious competitors who can afford such an expensive drug, a great body of myth further surrounds HGH discussion (among those personally unfamiliar). Many will state with the utmost confidence that the incredible mass of the Olympian competitors each year is 100% due to the use of HGH. Others have crossed bodybuilding materials claiming it to be a complete waste of money, an ineffective anabolic and barely worthwhile for fat loss. With its high price tag, certainly an incredibly poor buy in the face of steroids. So we have a very wide variety of opinions regarding this drug, whom should we believe? It is first important to understand why there the results obtained from this drug seem to vary so much. A logical factor in this regard would seem to be the price of this drug. Due to the elaborate manufacturing techniques used to produce it, it is extremely costly. Even a moderately dosed cycle could cost an athlete between $75-$150 per daily dosage. Most are unable or unwilling to spend so much, and instead tinker around with low dosages of the drug. Most who have used this item extensively claim it will only be effective at higher doses. Poor results would then be expected if low amounts were used, or the drug not administered daily. If you cannot commit to the full expense of an HGH cycle, you should really not be trying to use the drug. The average male athlete will usually need a dosage in the range of 4 to 6 I.U. per day to elicit the best results. On the low end perhaps 1 to 2 I.U. can be used daily, but this is still a considerable expense. Daily dosing is important, as HGH has a very short life span in the body. Peak blood concentrations are noted quickly (2 to 6 hours) after injection, and the hormone is cleared from the body with a half-life of only 20-30 minutes. Clearly it does not stick around very long, making stable blood levels difficult to maintain. The effects of this drug are also most pronounced when it is used for longer periods of time, often many months long. Some do use it for shorter periods, but generally only when looking for fat loss. For this purpose a cycle of at least four weeks would be used. This compound can be administered in both an intramuscular and subcutaneous injection. "Sub-Q" injections are particularly noted for producing a localized loss of fat, requiring the user to change injection points regularly to even out the effect. A general loss of fat seems to be the one characteristic most people agree on. It appears that the fat burning properties of this drug are more quickly apparent, and less dependent on high doses. Other drugs also need to be used in conjunction with HGH in order to elicit the best results. Your body seems to require an increased amount of thyroid hormones, insulin and androgens while HGH levels are elevated (HGH therapy in fact is shown to lower thyroid and insulin levels). To begin with, the addition of thyroid hormones will greatly increase the thermogenic effectiveness of a cycle. Taking either Cytomel or Synthroid (prescription versions of T-3 and T-4) would seem to make the most sense (the more powerful Cytomel is usually preferred). Insulin as well is very welcome during a cycle, used most commonly in an anabolic routine as described in this book under the insulin heading. Aside from replacing lowered insulin levels, use of this hormone is important as it can increase receptor sensitivity to IGF-1, and reduce levels of IGF binding protein-1 allowing for more free circulating IGF-1s° (growth hormone itself also lowers IGF binding protein levelss'). Steroids as well prove very necessary for the full anabolic effect of GH to become evident. Particularly something with a notable androgenic component such as testosterone or trenbolone (if worried about estrogen) should be used. The added androgen is quite useful, as it promotes anabolism by enhancing muscle cell size (remember GH primarily effects cell number). Steroid use may also increase free IGF-1 via a lowering of IGF binding proteins8z. The combination of all of these (HGH, anabolics, insulin and T-3) proves to be the most synergistic combination, providing clearly amplified results. it is of course important to note that thyroid and insulin are particularly powerful drugs that involve a number of additional risks. Release and action of GH and IGF-1: GHRH (growth hormone releasing hormone) and SST (somatostatin) are released by the hypothalamus to stimulate or inhibit the output of GH by the pituitary. GH has direct effects on many tissues, as well as indirect effects via the production of IGF-1. IGF-1 also causes negative feedback inhibition at the pituitary and hypothalamus. Heightened release of somatostatin affects not only the release of GH, but insulin and thyroid hormones as well. HGH itself does carry with it some of its own risks. The most predominantly discussed side effect would be acromegaly, or a noticeable thickening of the bones (notably the feet, forehead, hands, jaw and elbows). The drug can also enlarge vital organs such as the heart and kidney, and has been linked to hypoglycemia and diabetes (presumably due to its ability to induce insulin resistance). Theoretically, overuse of this hormone can bring about a number of conditions, some life threatening. Such problems however are extremely rare. Among the many athletes using growth hormone, we have very few documented cases of a serious problem developing. When used periodically at a moderate dosage, the athlete should have little cause for worry. Of course if there are any noticeable changes in bone structure, skin texture or normal health and well being during use, HGH therapy should be completely halted. In summary, the biggest mistake we can make with this drug is to get confused by the price tag. Even a relatively short cycle of this drug (and ancillaries) will cost in the thousand(s), not hundreds of dollars. We cannot jump to the conclusion that GH is therefore the most unbelievable anabolic. This hormone is simply very complex, and costly to manufacture (though it should be getting cheaper). If you were looking to achieve just a great mass gain the $1,000 would be better spent on steroids. Growth Hormone will not turn you into an overnight "freaky" monster and it is certainly not "the answer". Yes, it is a very effective performance enhancement tool. But it is more a tool for the competitive athlete looking for more than steroids alone can provide. There is little doubt that GH contributes considerably to the physiques and performance of many top bodybuilders and athletes. In this arena, the money spent on it is well justified, the drug obviously necessary. But outside of competitive sports it is usually not.
Mate There is a great thread on the main board (as a sticky) suggest you read through it. Lots of real world experience with GH for you to consider. 🙂
I would use it if I could get my hands on some.
It's a dificult topic...never is any black or white. Everyone responds differently. If you can afford the gamble...give it a go. If not then your money is better spent on good gear.
id say the same but that 1st post spun me abit, i never wouldve thought GH had higher sides than test! fuck itll make me think many times b4 considering it now
if you have exhausted all other avenues then maybe give it a try, i would never run it on its own though
all that info is great the teorie of growth use works for some but not all. i know quite a few guys that have used growth hormone for off season and precontest cycles, the results of which they do not rave about. the people i do know who noticed good results used growth hormone for healing broken bones.
really? i hope so! if there is any truth in that then i may use it for my forearm probs!!! keep em coming
would u seriously take it AR? let me knw if u have any left over u bastard LOL 😉 btw ..i am at WORK... LOL ,,,,just not much happening a peek here , a peek there ,a peek everywhere LOL 😉
thanks for the info guys, most of the reading that i have done on it has been very mixed some say it is the new test and others just thinks its shit and not worth the effort. Also thanks to T-X thats some good reading there. I think i might stick with the devil i know at least i know i get results.
A blood scientist i know said HGH is undetectable.
I have now found some and wants to run it at 2iu per day for around 5 months what you think?