ACTUAL study on MK-677 from PubMed

[Stewie Griffon]

Two-month treatment of obese subjects with the oral growth hormone (GH) secretagogue MK-677 increases GH secretion, fat-free mass, and energy expenditure.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9467542

So they gained lean mass and had an increased metabolism but lost no fat

Still a win!

 

[Musclegeek79]

interesting finding. I'm a cancer survivor and I'm fforbidden to take HGH forever but I'm wondering if it's safe to take this instead?

 

[Stewie Griffon]

interesting finding. I'm a cancer survivor and I'm fforbidden to take HGH forever but I'm wondering if it's safe to take this instead?

I would say a resounding no

Increased GH causes cancer cells to metastasize at a faster rate

Since MK-677 increases serum GH, the possible negative impact is still there

 

[nihilixm]

new study?

Personally I think mk677 makes me insulin resistant and I start gaining fat easier due to a high carb diet. Thoughts on that? I guess an easy fix would be to pin 3 iu insulin per meal right?

 

[nothuman]

interesting finding. I'm a cancer survivor and I'm fforbidden to take HGH forever but I'm wondering if it's safe to take this instead?

I'm willing to bet that if you look at all the HGH studies and replace them with MK677, many of the findings would be the same.

 

[thethinker48]

Exactly my experience with MK, ran it for more than a year. Lipolysis wasn't really present, but every other GH benefit was.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Gizmo]

interesting finding. I'm a cancer survivor and I'm fforbidden to take HGH forever but I'm wondering if it's safe to take this instead?

I've always found it a bit odd that cancer survivors shouldn't take HGH (I am a survivor myself), you'd think once you've been cancer free for over 5 years (that's considered cured for a lot of different cancers) HGH would be just as dangerous for you as the general population. I've never messed with GH myself, although I did do peptides for a bit. And I'd like to take GH eventually just for the purpose of feeling better when I'm older (I'm 38 now).

 

[itconsulting]

I have a hard time understanding why GH or peps burn fat but mk677 would not...

 

[Mike Arnold]

new study?

Personally I think mk677 makes me insulin resistant and I start gaining fat easier due to a high carb diet. Thoughts on that? I guess an easy fix would be to pin 3 iu insulin per meal right?

No. Adding insulin would be the worst possible thing you could do. All GH causes reduced insulin sensitivity regardless of the source. Taking exogenous insulin on top of it is only going to increase the possibility of adding fat, as insulin not only hinders lipolysis, but it also indirectly stimulates fat gain by further decreasing insulin sensitivity. However, a high carb diet will lead to greater decreases in insulin sensitivity than MK. Therefore, it is more likely to cause fat gain, as it not only negatively affects insulin sensitivity, but it may push you into caloric surplus as well.

As far as MK causing fat gain is concerned, no...that is not going to happen, as GH itself helps keep the fat off/prevents fat gain. Now, if you eat a ton of food because of its appetite increasing effects, then yes, you could gain fat, but that would be because of overeating, not a direct effect of the MK on fat levels.

 

[Gunsmith]

No. Adding insulin would be the worst possible thing you could do. All GH causes reduced insulin sensitivity regardless of the source. Taking exogenous insulin on top of it is only going to increase the possibility of adding fat, as insulin not only hinders lipolysis, but it also indirectly stimulates fat gain by further decreasing insulin sensitivity. However, a high carb diet will lead to greater decreases in insulin sensitivity than MK. Therefore, it is more likely to cause fat gain, as it not only negatively affects insulin sensitivity, but it may push you into caloric surplus as well.

As far as MK causing fat gain is concerned, no...that is not going to happen, as GH itself helps keep the fat off/prevents fat gain. Now, if you eat a ton of food because of its appetite increasing effects, then yes, you could gain fat, but that would be because of overeating, not a direct effect of the MK on fat levels.

Mike , what's your opinion on running MK-677 with exogenous HGH??
Say a guy training at 5pm
would taking his HGH at 4pm , sipping 40-50g carbs through training , 40-50g carbs+50g protein shake post workout , high protein moderate fat dinner , then take the MK at 10pm at bed time. I've heard this is a good way then I've also heard to swap the HGH and MK around so the MK is pre workout and the GH is pre bed.

 

[epoxy]

Mike , what's your opinion on running MK-677 with exogenous HGH??
Say a guy training at 5pm
would taking his HGH at 4pm , sipping 40-50g carbs through training , 40-50g carbs+50g protein shake post workout , high protein moderate fat dinner , then take the MK at 10pm at bed time. I've heard this is a good way then I've also heard to swap the HGH and MK around so the MK is pre workout and the GH is pre bed.

i'm taking my GH upon waking up, and my MK before bed.

i discussed it with Mike before starting the protocol, he had some good insights and this seemed to be a good way to go about it, especially if you're using his MK with the extra ingredients it has.

 

[Cinder]

I'm confused why it's a win for obese people to not lose fat but gain fat free mass? They gained water and whatever else, not muscle.

 

[Mike Arnold]

I'm confused why it's a win for obese people to not lose fat but gain fat free mass? They gained water and whatever else, not muscle.

Keep in mind the following. GH is not going to cause muscle growth in people who don't train, especially over such a short study period. Now, GH has been shown to cause growth over an extended period of time without training, but not after a few weeks like this study.

Furthermore, just because the people in this study didn't lose any fat, it does not mean MK doesn't cause fat loss. For one, these people were not on a diet...and we all know what MK does to the appetite, so I would be willing to put money on the fact that most of these people actually started eating MORE, which should have resulted in fat GAIN, but none of them gained fat!

Two, there are even studies using actual GH where no fat was lost, when the study was over such a short duration, such as this.

Three, MK was shown to increase energy expenditure...and that alone will cause fat loss over time. The people in this study had increased levels of energy expenditure (increased metabolism).

The bottom line is that GH has a positive effect on fat levels...and MK significantly increases GH levels. These people didn't train, didn't control their diet, and likely ate MORE than usually because of MK's significant appetite stimulating effects...yet they still gained no fat. Plus, we all know that MK has been shown to increase lean mass, significantly, during longer study periods (and especially in those who train).

 

[Cinder]

Can you show me a study where gh or mk brought on
"growth over an extended period of time without training"
Hell, show me one with training that shows the growth of muscle tissue. LBM is thrown around a lot and people assume it's muscle they're talking about.
I just wanna see the studies is all.

 

[Stewie Griffon]

Can you show me a study where gh or mk brought on "growth over an extended period of time without training"

It clearly states in the study:

"Fat-free mass increased significantly in the MK-677 treatment group when determined with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (P < 0.01) or using a four-compartment model (P < 0.05)."

It also states the study was done on "Twenty-four obese males, aged 18-50 yr, with body mass indexes greater than 30 kg/m2 and waist/hip ratios greater than 0.95, were treated with MK-677 25 mg (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12) daily for 8 weeks."

There is an extremely high probability that these obese men did not train, hence their existing obesity.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Can you show me a study where gh or mk brought on
"growth over an extended period of time without training"
Hell, show me one with training that shows the growth of muscle tissue. LBM is thrown around a lot and people assume it's muscle they're talking about.
I just wanna see the studies is all.

Look, we all know you are anti-GH. As soon as you get the opportunity to say GH doesn't cause muscle growth, you are all over it.

We've had this argument before...we're not going to do it again. If you think IGF-1 doesn't cause muscle growth, you are denying hard science.

 

[Mike Arnold]

It clearly states in the study:

"Fat-free mass increased significantly in the MK-677 treatment group when determined with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (P < 0.01) or using a four-compartment model (P < 0.05)."

It also states the study was done on "Twenty-four obese males, aged 18-50 yr, with body mass indexes greater than 30 kg/m2 and waist/hip ratios greater than 0.95, were treated with MK-677 25 mg (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12) daily for 8 weeks."

There is an extremely high probability that these obese men did not train, hence their existing obesity.

Cinder is constantly trying to say that GH doesn't cause muscle growth. There was a big, long thread about it sometimes last year in which myself and many others argued with him about it...and when we tried to tell him that science clearly shows that IGF-1 plays a direct role in muscle growth (which GH directly increases), he kept on saying "show me the studies where GH causes muscle growth".

Of course, we tried to tell him that "no ethical group of scientists is going to give supraphysiological doses of GH (beyond replacement levels) to bodybuilders just so they can gauge the growth promoting effects of GH-induced IGF-1 elevation", but he keeps on saying "show me the studies", even though he knows full well they will never exist.

Basically, he is denying that IGF-1 stimulates growth. A silly argument, to be sure, but one he constantly likes to throw out there.

 

[Cinder]

Look, we all know you are anti-GH. As soon as you get the opportunity to say GH doesn't cause muscle growth, you are all over it.

We've had this argument before...we're not going to do it again. If you think IGF-1 doesn't cause muscle growth, you are denying hard science.

Look, we all know you are anti-GH. As soon as you get the opportunity to say GH doesn't cause muscle growth, you are all over it.

We've had this argument before...we're not going to do it again. If you think IGF-1 doesn't cause muscle growth, you are denying hard science.

So your response is that you can't find any evidence?
But since you wanna go there, I simply asked for proof. Sure it should be there if "we all know it"
We all know one thing, you talk out of your bum to sell what ever, all while calling it better than everyone else's.
Is it bad to ask for real muscle proof from guys that keep selling the idea along with their claims?
Sit down if you wanna argue. Find your logic before starting something you can't finish. It would be nice if someone could find true muscle gain studies, but none of us have it seems.

 

[Cinder]

It clearly states in the study:

"Fat-free mass increased significantly in the MK-677 treatment group when determined with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (P < 0.01) or using a four-compartment model (P < 0.05)."

It also states the study was done on "Twenty-four obese males, aged 18-50 yr, with body mass indexes greater than 30 kg/m2 and waist/hip ratios greater than 0.95, were treated with MK-677 25 mg (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12) daily for 8 weeks."

There is an extremely high probability that these obese men did not train, hence their existing obesity.

It says fat free mass. I wanna know what that mass is.
Is that listed anywhere?

 

[Cinder]

Cinder is constantly trying to say that GH doesn't cause muscle growth. There was a big, long thread about it sometimes last year in which myself and many others argued with him about it...and when we tried to tell him that science clearly shows that IGF-1 plays a direct role in muscle growth (which GH directly increases), he kept on saying "show me the studies where GH causes muscle growth".

Of course, we tried to tell him that "no ethical group of scientists is going to give supraphysiological doses of GH (beyond replacement levels) to bodybuilders just so they can gauge the growth promoting effects of GH-induced IGF-1 elevation", but he keeps on saying "show me the studies", even though he knows full well they will never exist.

Basically, he is denying that IGF-1 stimulates growth. A silly argument, to be sure, but one he constantly likes to throw out there.

Actually you just couldn't find a single study.
Guys like Stewie chimed in to confirm this, if I remember.
All you have to do is show your work, why is that so hard to show proof of that in which you speak? You get defensive when people ask for proof. Please sit down Mr. "My MK is better than your MK"
If there are no studies and never will be, you should stop talking as if there is any proof of what you say.
I've used plenty of hgh and at high dosages. I've used High pharmacy grade specifically.