• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
esquel
YMSGIF210x65-Banner
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Bio-identical hormones (test, gh, insulin, igf)

The first is bioidentical, the second is a delivery mechanism for T.
Delivery mechanism is the delivery mechanism. The delivery of bio-indentical T.
17AAs are virtually nonsuppressive and just additive to endogenous
Orals are not suppressive?
there weren't two decades of industrial-scale international efforts by pharmaceutical corporations to develop testosterone alternatives for naught - it's because many derivatives are better at non-TRT applications than testosterone is
Non-TRT as pertains to male contraceptive and/or treatment of breast cancer.

I'm not talking about muscle wasting, burns, anemia, etc but rather T and E suppression for purposes of treating breast cancer and reduced spermatogenesis.
 
Curious to hear your opinion on the legitimacy of igf products other than actual increlex? I remember in 04 or so they became mainstream and we're popular. Then you started to hear that ug labs could not actually produce this product. Haven't really looked into it since then.
I asked jano about his experience with LR3 samples (a potent analog of IGF-I) recently, and he said something basically in line with: LR3, when it was popular, was almost always good quality & real; lately, he has tested some counterfeit samples, and sees some degradation in samples that are LR3, but show some peaks indicating that it's been sitting in storage for years (some degree of lost potency, but still effective). And still sees good LR3, but it doesn't come into his possession for testing very often these days, so it's difficult to characterize the current state of the market.
 
Delivery mechanism is the delivery mechanism. The delivery of bio-indentical T.
Semantic debate at this point.
Orals are not suppressive?
They fall on a spectrum. Dbol is very suppressive, Anadrol sort of intermediate, but Var, Halo, Winstrol, Oral Turinabol, Proviron, not at all when used at moderate doses. These doses are usually damn near maximally stimulative of N retention, anyway. So when guys are munching 80 mg of Var, they'll see some suppression (and lipids fucked), but with 20 mg (which is virtually the same with respect to anabolism as 80 mg), you can run this effectively while endogenous T secretion proceeds (what I am not saying is that T secretion will be maintained at 100%, it'll see some decrement, albeit insignificant given the exogenous androgen).
Non-TRT as pertains to male contraceptive and/or treatment of breast cancer.

I'm not talking about muscle wasting, burns, anemia, etc but rather T and E suppression for purposes of treating breast cancer and reduced spermatogenesis.
I don't know, you'll have to expound. I have read loads about testosterone for male contraceptive use, but not much about testosterone for (female, right?) breast cancer patients, other than it was less efficacious than drostanolone and such in early studies.
 
Well, your first mistake is listening to anything that luki says with respect to health.

The notion that "bio-identical" hormones are healthier than their synthetic counterparts is patently false.

Fundamentally, if you or I had any interest in respecting nature's tightly regulated endocrine system with respect to our health we wouldn't insult that regulatory system (e.g., IGF-I declines with age probably because it promotes lifespan, that is, we need to stop growing after the pubertal growth spurt, or we'll die from diseases like cancers more quickly). Note that all of these drugs increase IGF-I (testosterone, rhGH, rhI, rhIGF-I).

Of course Test, GH, slin, IGF-I, are all highly potent anabolic agents, because growth & metabolism are some of their primary evolutionary functions. Testosterone is anabolic particularly in skeletal muscle & sex organs; GH (of which there are 2 primary endogenous isoforms in adult men, 20K & 22K -GH, while in isolation it acts generally as a catabolic or energy-releasing compound, in vivo it serves complementary functions a la IGF-I that include longitudinal & total body growth, with IGF-I existing in its various forms (not many of which are free or unbound IGF-I, but rather exist in various complexes with binding proteins & the ALS, that variously both stimulate and inhibit uptake into certain tissues).

And yet, pharmacopeia derives fantastic profits, not to mind people that use modified forms of these drugs derive fantastic benefits from, chemical modifications to these hormones that exist endogenously.

To tease out a bit the absurdity of the "bio-identical" dogma among many bros, let's look at the case of "slin" (injectable recombinant human insulin preparations). Virtually everybody seems to think "slin" is bioidentical, but only Regular Human Insulin preparations (synonymous with neutral or soluble insulin) can be fairly described as "bio-identical" with respect to chemical structure, but actually it is not "bio-identical" in its biological effects because neither its pharmacokinetics nor pharmacokinetics are exactly the same as pancreatically-secreted insulin, because injections alter its time-course in blood, affect its distribution, etc. The broader universe of "slin," i.e., rhI preparations, are modified forms of regular insulin; modified to derive greater efficacy and provide for use cases where regular human insulin are inappropriate (e.g., stably-controlled blood glucose with a once-daily injection, as with Insulin glargine or Lantus [the glargine modification reduces insulin's solubility in extracellular fluid, delaying absorption into the systemic circulation]).

Injectable testosterone formulations provide prodrugs to testosterone, only testosterone aqueous suspensions come close to being arguably "bio-identical" (but is actually not even that close, because of its bimodal pharmacokinetics due to distinct pharmacokinetic profiles inherent to the dissolution from residual solid material); RhGH provides the more anabolic of the primary GH isoforms, and not the other, or third in the case of pregnant women (there is also a placentally-secreted GH isoform); RhIGF-I is bound up by various binary, ternary, IGFBP complexes, etc, altering its biological effects (its non-naturally occurring LR3 analogue is a more anabolically potent form, but not superior per se).

I could go on... Anyway, I am really looking forward to the ruffled responses to things that I never said.
Lots of talk here about mechanisms but not a single reference to actual real world results.

"Evolution means natural changes that happen with age are probably what is most healthy, ie, declines in IGF with age help to increase lifespan."

Except there are studies showing seniors who experience declines in hormones like GH and Testosterone are less healthy than seniors who maintain natural levels of those hormones.

And that sort of logic "what happens in nature is probably the healthiest" goes directly against your argument that bioidentical hormones aren't best, as well as would imply that age-related causes of death are actually causes of health.
 
Semantic debate at this point.
I don't want to debate. Just discuss. Nothing to do with cerebral and verbal one-upmanship.

I don't know, you'll have to expound. I have read loads about testosterone for male contraceptive use, but not much about testosterone for (female, right?) breast cancer patients, other than it was less efficacious than drostanolone and such in early studies.
Nevermind this. AAS-induced increased incidence of male breast cancer. But I can look this up later. Thanks, brother.👍
 
If only! Unfortunately, I can't take any of the cycline class of antibiotics due to acute allergic reaction. But yes, that would most certainly help if I could.
First time I heard of this. Tell me more. Which this condition caused by?
 
How many international units of insulin mimic healthy normal young man , insulin levels?

Now I have insulin can interfere with cardiovascular and the heart, I don't know if this is true or not but I like to do all the research and be healthy. That said as a competitor doing this for a certain amount of time is 10 international units of insulin year-round with every workout say five to seven times a week for ten years with little effects on heart and cardiovascular system?

As far as I know I haven't seen that much research on cardiovascular heart and insulin people have talked about it though.

What about 10 international units 3 to 4 times a week? Same effects on cardiovascular and heart?
 
First time I heard of this. Tell me more. Which this condition caused by?

There’s a lot of information on the allergies linked below.

 
Lots of talk here about mechanisms but not a single reference to actual real world results.

"Evolution means natural changes that happen with age are probably what is most healthy, ie, declines in IGF with age help to increase lifespan."

Except there are studies showing seniors who experience declines in hormones like GH and Testosterone are less healthy than seniors who maintain natural levels of those hormones.

And that sort of logic "what happens in nature is probably the healthiest" goes directly against your argument that bioidentical hormones aren't best, as well as would imply that age-related causes of death are actually causes of health.
Whenever I feel the pull to have internet dipshits respond to things that I never said, ProM is where I come. It never lets me down.
 
Semantic debate at this point.

They fall on a spectrum. Dbol is very suppressive, Anadrol sort of intermediate, but Var, Halo, Winstrol, Oral Turinabol, Proviron, not at all when used at moderate doses. These doses are usually damn near maximally stimulative of N retention, anyway. So when guys are munching 80 mg of Var, they'll see some suppression (and lipids fucked), but with 20 mg (which is virtually the same with respect to anabolism as 80 mg), you can run this effectively while endogenous T secretion proceeds (what I am not saying is that T secretion will be maintained at 100%, it'll see some decrement, albeit insignificant given the exogenous androgen).

I don't know, you'll have to expound. I have read loads about testosterone for male contraceptive use, but not much about testosterone for (female, right?) breast cancer patients, other than it was less efficacious than drostanolone and such in early studies.

But this is not uniform, right?

Some will experience HPTA shutdown on Winstrol, Var, Tbol but others wont.

I wonder if the HPTA suppressive effects are fairly linear, but users endogenous testosterone baseline is different. Ie, if some went from 800-500 TT the negative effects aren't so pronounced, but going from 400-10 hypogonadism side effects are obvious.
 
Whenever I feel the pull to have internet dipshits respond to things that I never said, ProM is where I come. It never lets me down.

For every dipshit, there’s a lot more of us that appreciate what you put out. I appreciate studies as much as I do real world experience. Remember the loud, don’t necessarily represent the majority. Don’t let it discourage you from coming on here, many of us would hate to see you post less frequently.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Total page views
558,112,624
Threads
135,769
Messages
2,768,864
Members
160,345
Latest member
Peterwilliam
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
yourmuscleshop210x131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top