Do you worry about the longterm effects of Peptides?

[DrivingForward]

After watching the peptide market seem to explode within the last 3 or 4 years, I've been really concerned about the longterm implications of using untested substances.

Before well intentioned people try to justify the use of a risky material, by stating that we use OTHER risky chemicals, let me put things in perspective.

Steroids -- Been around for YEARS. Widely used in medicine, state sponsored doping programs, subject to peer reviewed studies, and tens of thousands of amateur and professional bodybuilders have used them in all manner of doseages. We know what works, we see first hand examples of the consequences and/or benefits present 5-10-20-50 years down the line.

Even DNP, which having read how many people swear adamantly "I'd never touch that shit!" was at one time FDA approved, has been used many many times by bodybuilders/dieters over the last 100 years. Numerous studies seem to indicate that it isn't carcinogenic, and that cataract fears may have been unfounded.

Peptides -- New, Largely untested in humans (other than by our brothers in Iron... who aren't exactly in a lab or monitored by a Dr-- MD or Phd), and sourced from many countries who are famous for adultering their products.

However it has been my observation that many of the same people who parrot the "Use testosterone only as a last result after 17.25 years of training, having consulted a fortune teller, nutritionist, and cleared it with your tax accountant" speech, openly talk about experimenting with largely untested doseages of peptides that directly affect the function and secretion of chemicals within the brain. Worse, the peptides come from unknown laboratories, with truly unknown compositions.

Theres enough fake/tainted Test Cyp out there, and synthesizing Testosterone isnt exactly cutting edge technology-- Let alone some fringe peptide fragment that has very little in the way of longterm testing. Safe on mice doesn't mean safe on humans!

I know I'll probably get flamed for this post so let me say this: I'm all for using any compound (even pushing the boundaries of good sense) to get whatever result you want for whatever reason you want. I'm not morally presumptuous enough to believe that I am qualified to decide who should and should-not use juice/etc... But at some point you have to do a risk-benefit analysis and wonder if peptides are really beneficial enough to face the unknown!

 

[DatBtrue]

... But at some point you have to do a risk-benefit analysis and wonder if peptides are really beneficial enough to face the unknown!

Few people have given as much thought to all of this as you have. I commend you for having done that.

"Peptides" is a classification that encompasses 10,000+ known structures. Some hormones are even peptides. Peptides are basically amino acid chains... or could even be called "proteins". Your body makes and used peptides of all sort. Most of the peptides your body makes and uses are for processes that are probably boring to the bodybuilder.

Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone is a hormone with a 44 amino acid structure. It is a peptide.

Not every peptide structure that is created in the lab is identical to something the body makes. GHRH or GH receptor antagonists are often peptides designed to bind to receptors in malignant tissue and stop real GHRH or GH from binding. This has the effect of stopping aggressive cancers from metastasizing. If used in conjunction with chemotherapy in human studies it has been demonstrated to be very effective.

The point is you have to be careful when you use the term peptide. Although it may be a new term to you it isn't something that is brand spanking new.

But turning to a Ghrelin mimetic, GHRP-6. It was created 30 years ago. I wrote a lot about it because there were a lot of studies. It is a very well studied peptide. In fact Merck took it and derived small molecules that mimic GHRP-6. One such molecule is MK-677.

The other thing you should be aware of is that particular amino acid structures are well known and have predictive value. This means that it is known that IF a peptide contains XYZ structure in it it will do ABC in the body.

So there is plenty of known. In fact the GHRPs and their derivatives are in clinical trial w/ different names to become FDA approved drugs. GHRH has been an approved drug for a long time in the name of Sermorelin.

So the risks are known for the types of peptides we talk about in regard to GH release.

Now IF you have clinical grade or a prescribed item you can be fairly certain that the risks are confined to the science, to the medical literature. But if you do not you begin to gamble more.

At that point your statements and concerns become valid. One thing you did not mention is the potential for a peptide that isn't pure to contain peptide fragments that either did not "take" in the synthesis process or later broke off. These peptide fragments could form a different structure all together which has unintended consequences. No human study is permitted to move forward unless tests on toxicity and potential making of antibodies is performed and known. Once it is known that the peptide will do know initial harm the most highly purified will be permitted to be injected into humans. What is used is fresh, pure and non degraded.

You are not in that position. You have unknowns to deal with because you purchased a purported peptide on your own and you are now about to inject it in to your body. The risks you are undertaking at that point are similar to the risks you would take if you injected any unknown. Although scientifically testosterone is known, what you are injecting (unless it is prescribed) is not known. Simply because it works does not mean you don't have nasty "free-riders" in that vial.

In essence I agree with you, but do so in regard to the wider class of things people inject. I do disagree with you to some extent concerning what is known and the magnitude of risk associated with the GHRPs and GHRH.

To my mind the primary risk of GHRH analogs is the potential for pituitary hyperplasia and that is a concern I have long circled for compounds that cause "growth hormone bleed" such as CJC-1295.

Beyond that my worries are few as I confine myself to anti-aging doses now of 3rd generation GHRPs and GRF of high purity. Anecdotally I can report that I have been continuously using GHRP/GHRH for a couple of years and my head hasn't exploded yet.

Although several threads down there are some who would say my head has become click click BOOM big.

Your points are valid and I can do little more to assuage them.

 

[DrivingForward]

Few people have given as much thought to all of this as you have. I commend you for having done that.

Thank you. I don't possess your passion for researching clinical studies, nor do I have your level of expertise. I tried to bring up a relevant point, in the most simple and applied manner, and then get the opinion of others.

The point is you have to be careful when you use the term peptide. Although it may be a new term to you it isn't something that is brand spanking new.

But turning to a Ghrelin mimetic, GHRP-6. It was created 30 years ago. I wrote a lot about it because there were a lot of studies. It is a very well studied peptide. In fact Merck took it and derived small molecules that mimic GHRP-6. One such molecule is MK-677.

The other thing you should be aware of is that particular amino acid structures are well known and have predictive value. This means that it is known that IF a peptide contains XYZ structure in it it will do ABC in the body.

So there is plenty of known. In fact the GHRPs and their derivatives are in clinical trial w/ different names to become FDA approved drugs. GHRH has been an approved drug for a long time in the name of Sermorelin.

You're right, I didn't mean to oversimplify. I didn't realize the research went back that far. I can only attest to the applied usage that I can observe first and second hand from fellow bodybuilders and athetes.

So the risks are known for the types of peptides we talk about in regard to GH release.

Now IF you have clinical grade or a prescribed item you can be fairly certain that the risks are confined to the science, to the medical literature. But if you do not you begin to gamble more.

True, up to the point and with the exception that many side effects (both positive and negative) of drugs are only found once a drug has already been approved and prescribed to the masses. Sometimes it takes several years (maybe even decades) before enough evidence can be collected to show causal effects linked to use of a certain drug. Consider the case of Tetracycline and pregnant women

At that point your statements and concerns become valid. One thing you did not mention is the potential for a peptide that isn't pure to contain peptide fragments that either did not "take" in the synthesis process or later broke off. These peptide fragments could form a different structure all together which has unintended consequences. No human study is permitted to move forward unless tests on toxicity and potential making of antibodies is performed and known. Once it is known that the peptide will do know initial harm the most highly purified will be permitted to be injected into humans. What is used is fresh, pure and non degraded.

The thought had crossed my mind, but you were able to articulate it much better. Your knowledge of chemistry is assuredly superior to mine.

In essence I agree with you, but do so in regard to the wider class of things people inject. I do disagree with you to some extent concerning what is known and the magnitude of risk associated with the GHRPs and GHRH.

To my mind the primary risk of GHRH analogs is the potential for pituitary hyperplasia and that is a concern I have long circled for compounds that cause "growth hormone bleed" such as CJC-1295.

Beyond that my worries are few as I confine myself to anti-aging doses now of 3rd generation GHRPs and GRF of high purity. Anecdotally I can report that I have been continuously using GHRP/GHRH for a couple of years and my head hasn't exploded yet.

Although several threads down there are some who would say my head has become click click BOOM big.

Your points are valid and I can do little more to assuage them.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I'm quite glad to hear that your head hasn't EXPLODED yet, despite GHRP or excessive amounts of research!

This was by far the best reply that I have ever recieved on a message board.

 

[inevitable]

nice post DatBtrue... thanks for the insight.

 

[robot]

What's a little cancerous growth between friends?

Monsanto and it's rBGH seemed like a pretty good idea at the time as well.
Let's not pretend that we know what the long term effects are.

 

[disgraziato]

True. We do not know the long term effects of peptides. But most of what we do on this and other boards is research and report to our fellow brothers. We're not scientists doing decade long clinical studies on the effect on a certain compound with decade long follow-ups.

 

[robot]

.. but the big concern with rBGH in american milk isn't the rBGH, instead it's the IGF1 and it's relationship to breast cancer in pre-menopausal women and prostate cancer in men.

Most of the peptides that we are experimenting with are being used to produce increased IGF1 production in the human body.

This has to be a significant concern.

Bro-science won't catch up with this unless the potentially resulting tumors occur and are diagnosed within a very short time of the consumption of these substances. If the negative impacts are chronic and take time to express themselves then tracing back to causation is unpossible. There are too many other systemic factors over time.

 

[tryin2getripped]

Few people have given as much thought to all of this as you have. I commend you for having done that.

"Peptides" is a classification that encompasses 10,000+ known structures. Some hormones are even peptides. Peptides are basically amino acid chains... or could even be called "proteins". Your body makes and used peptides of all sort. Most of the peptides your body makes and uses are for processes that are probably boring to the bodybuilder.

Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone is a hormone with a 44 amino acid structure. It is a peptide.

Not every peptide structure that is created in the lab is identical to something the body makes. GHRH or GH receptor antagonists are often peptides designed to bind to receptors in malignant tissue and stop real GHRH or GH from binding. This has the effect of stopping aggressive cancers from metastasizing. If used in conjunction with chemotherapy in human studies it has been demonstrated to be very effective.

The point is you have to be careful when you use the term peptide. Although it may be a new term to you it isn't something that is brand spanking new.

But turning to a Ghrelin mimetic, GHRP-6. It was created 30 years ago. I wrote a lot about it because there were a lot of studies. It is a very well studied peptide. In fact Merck took it and derived small molecules that mimic GHRP-6. One such molecule is MK-677.

The other thing you should be aware of is that particular amino acid structures are well known and have predictive value. This means that it is known that IF a peptide contains XYZ structure in it it will do ABC in the body.

So there is plenty of known. In fact the GHRPs and their derivatives are in clinical trial w/ different names to become FDA approved drugs. GHRH has been an approved drug for a long time in the name of Sermorelin.

So the risks are known for the types of peptides we talk about in regard to GH release.

Now IF you have clinical grade or a prescribed item you can be fairly certain that the risks are confined to the science, to the medical literature. But if you do not you begin to gamble more.

At that point your statements and concerns become valid. One thing you did not mention is the potential for a peptide that isn't pure to contain peptide fragments that either did not "take" in the synthesis process or later broke off. These peptide fragments could form a different structure all together which has unintended consequences. No human study is permitted to move forward unless tests on toxicity and potential making of antibodies is performed and known. Once it is known that the peptide will do know initial harm the most highly purified will be permitted to be injected into humans. What is used is fresh, pure and non degraded.

You are not in that position. You have unknowns to deal with because you purchased a purported peptide on your own and you are now about to inject it in to your body. The risks you are undertaking at that point are similar to the risks you would take if you injected any unknown. Although scientifically testosterone is known, what you are injecting (unless it is prescribed) is not known. Simply because it works does not mean you don't have nasty "free-riders" in that vial.

In essence I agree with you, but do so in regard to the wider class of things people inject. I do disagree with you to some extent concerning what is known and the magnitude of risk associated with the GHRPs and GHRH.

To my mind the primary risk of GHRH analogs is the potential for pituitary hyperplasia and that is a concern I have long circled for compounds that cause "growth hormone bleed" such as CJC-1295.

Beyond that my worries are few as I confine myself to anti-aging doses now of 3rd generation GHRPs and GRF of high purity. Anecdotally I can report that I have been continuously using GHRP/GHRH for a couple of years and my head hasn't exploded yet.

Although several threads down there are some who would say my head has become click click BOOM big.

Your points are valid and I can do little more to assuage them.

awesome post!

 

[disgraziato]

.. but the big concern with rBGH in american milk isn't the rBGH, instead it's the IGF1 and it's relationship to breast cancer in pre-menopausal women and prostate cancer in men.

Most of the peptides that we are experimenting with are being used to produce increased IGF1 production in the human body.

This has to be a significant concern.

Bro-science won't catch up with this unless the potentially resulting tumors occur and are diagnosed within a very short time of the consumption of these substances. If the negative impacts are chronic and take time to express themselves then tracing back to causation is unpossible. There are too many other systemic factors over time.

There are studies that link chronically elevated sytemic igf levels with cancers of various types. I do not argue that point. I, myself am not a proponent of substances that tend to elevate systemic igf levels over extended periods of time, ie: cjc-1295(DAC). A number of gentleman on various boards have tested their igf levels while researching with grf/ghrp protocols; there have been complaints that their igf levels weren't high, and in some instances, was substandard. But what they are testing is systemic igf. Locally produced igf has the most beneficial effect on hyperplasia/hypertrophy as well as healing. It is this elevation that, in my opinion, we should consider.
As a matter of fact, low levels of sytemic igf is associated with longevity.

 

[BigBastard]

I am bumping this important issue for more input!

 

[AnaBoller]

Fantastic synopsis on usage DatBTrue, thanks.

Sorry to bump the old thread but I am interested in hearing more information from other users about their experiences with long term use. I myself have taken gh @ 2IU 5 days on/2 days off for about a year, followed by CJC-1295 (100 mcg ED) and GHRP-6 (75 mcg ED) for 9 months.

I do notice improved mood/energy levels on days I take peptides (CJC/GHRP) now, and am curious to see if anyone has negative long term experiences with either GHRP/GHRH peptides or long term GH use. I haven't noticed any negative affects, i.e. Acromegaly, etc, but do sometimes feel a bit less energetic or "sad" when I don't dose - although this could be placebo.

How have others responded, anecdotally, to long term peptide use? Just curious as to what others may have experienced.

 

[tpeter]

Fantastic synopsis on usage DatBTrue, thanks.

Sorry to bump the old thread but I am interested in hearing more information from other users about their experiences with long term use. I myself have taken gh @ 2IU 5 days on/2 days off for about a year, followed by CJC-1295 (100 mcg ED) and GHRP-6 (75 mcg ED) for 9 months.

I do notice improved mood/energy levels on days I take peptides (CJC/GHRP) now, and am curious to see if anyone has negative long term experiences with either GHRP/GHRH peptides or long term GH use. I haven't noticed any negative affects, i.e. Acromegaly, etc, but do sometimes feel a bit less energetic or "sad" when I don't dose - although this could be placebo.

How have others responded, anecdotally, to long term peptide use? Just curious as to what others may have experienced.

What have you noticed on 2iu hgh for that long time .

I'm on 3 now just started

 

[Google&Pubmed]

 

[bcr83]

An article was released today around the death of an Australian professional Rugby League player. They are investigating the effects of using CJC 1295 and GHRP6 as the team was administered it throughout the season.

Sharks report raises peptides 'link' with cancer

Also found this interesting link on IGF levels - this is contradictory to what I thought increased IGF levels actually do??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHYFOJBU434]Dr. McDougall and Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Incognito1]

An article was released today around the death of an Australian professional Rugby League player. They are investigating the effects of using CJC 1295 and GHRP6 as the team was administered it throughout the season.

Sharks report raises peptides 'link' with cancer

Also found this interesting link on IGF levels - this is contradictory to what I thought increased IGF levels actually do??

Dr. McDougall and Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 - YouTube

Peptides to a certain extent like HGH can cause cancers to develop quicker than what they would have without peptides.
But this is just the media and the government trying to give peptides bad publicity.

 

[Incognito1]

Also why would you take growth peptides when you have cancer anyway. No offence to the player as he probably wouldn't have known what they were capable of but seriously!!!

 

[bcr83]

Yeah there's no way I'd be taking them if that was the case, I guess it's for the majority thaty don't know what/if they have cancerous cells and are taking peps that could make things worse..

 

[Dezzy]

So I'm gonna be THAT guy and bump an old as thread. This was started 4 years ago. Anyone gotten any long term side effects from peptides namely cancer growth, or pituitary hyperplasia?

 

[sammy555]

So I'm gonna be THAT guy and bump an old as thread. This was started 4 years ago. Anyone gotten any long term side effects from peptides namely cancer growth, or pituitary hyperplasia?

Nope, all good for now

 

[Elvia1023]

I am all good too. Let's come back to this in another 4 years and see if we are all still here (as in alive)!