Exciting! GRF1-29/GHRP-2 serum GH test!

[cm]

Alpha, this thread is appreciated.
thank you to phil for the supplies for you and thank you for educating us with these numbers.
It is a great thing you are doing
look forward to the monday test and the comparisons to follow
btw, the ghrp 2/6 hunger research subjects experience fades with time, or the subjects just get used to it
-c

 

[joblogg]

Excellent stuff!
Couple things , i don't think this coincides with Dats data, where i'm sure the graphs he has put forward show peps raising GH serum levels much higher than 12.8.

Another thing is how effective(for our purposes) is a short lived spike of GH like you have gotten here from peps, compared to the more sustained spike we get from GH?

As with peps i believe you return to baseline within an hour or so and with GH you don't even reach peak serum levels till 3hrs.

I wonder how important each factor is, i.e height of spike vs length of spike?

As i believe peps don't really affect your IGF1 levels where as we know GH elevates IGF1 considerably...

 

[alpha6164]

Excellent stuff!
Couple things , i don't think this coincides with Dats data, where i'm sure the graphs he has put forward show peps raising GH serum levels much higher than 12.8.

Another thing is how effective(for our purposes) is a short lived spike of GH like you have gotten here from peps, compared to the more sustained spike we get from GH?

As with peps i believe you return to baseline within an hour or so and with GH you don't even reach peak serum levels till 3hrs.

I wonder how important each factor is, i.e height of spike vs length of spike?

As i believe peps don't really affect your IGF1 levels where as we know GH elevates IGF1 considerably...

You raise some very important questions. There is no question that with peps your total time under the curve of elevated GH is less than if you injected 3iu of GH twice a day. What is important is the distinction of balls to the walls doing GH with no care about potential long term effects of constantly bombarding your system with GH vs the pulse fashion that our body is used to.

Major effects of GH are its conversion to IGF and hence why when you take Gh your IGF1 rise and all the good effects you get are strictly from that. Peptides definitely will raise your IGF1 but you have to take enough of it for it to do so.

Every study i have looked at which involved tesamorelin shows a rise of IGF1 from 110-187 from baseline. So if you started at 200, you can go to 387 which is what most people get from 3-4iu of GH daily. I think if you used the short acting peptides more frequently several times a day at higher dosages you might be able to go higher but doubt you will get the elevated IGF1s you get with good synthetic GH like i did with Rips. I have tested as high as in the 800s and mostly in the 600s with 6iu of GH daily.

But for people that want fat loss and anti-aging i believe we can find a dose of combo peptide that can get your IGF1 to raise by 150-200 from baseline and be significantly cheaper than GH.

 

[Ruhlfreak55]

Being that I'm going to FINALLY actually be playing with all this stuff after my contest run in the next 5 weeks I find this all very interesting and will be following closely. Real science is always appreciated.

 

[Seabiscuit Hogg]

You raise some very important questions. There is no question that with peps your total time under the curve of elevated GH is less than if you injected 3iu of GH twice a day. What is important is the distinction of balls to the walls doing GH with no care about potential long term effects of constantly bombarding your system with GH vs the pulse fashion that our body is used to.

Major effects of GH are its conversion to IGF and hence why when you take Gh your IGF1 rise and all the good effects you get are strictly from that. Peptides definitely will raise your IGF1 but you have to take enough of it for it to do so.

Every study i have looked at which involved tesamorelin shows a rise of IGF1 from 110-187 from baseline. So if you started at 200, you can go to 387 which is what most people get from 3-4iu of GH daily. I think if you used the short acting peptides more frequently several times a day at higher dosages you might be able to go higher but doubt you will get the elevated IGF1s you get with good synthetic GH like i did with Rips. I have tested as high as in the 800s and mostly in the 600s with 6iu of GH daily.

But for people that want fat loss and anti-aging i believe we can find a dose of combo peptide that can get your IGF1 to raise by 150-200 from baseline and be significantly cheaper than GH.

Does ramping up GHRH give a more sustained release that is more akin to running synthetic? The reason I ask is the higher IGF-1. BTW, thanks for posting this. I love learning new things.

 

[qwestor]

CJCwDAC vs HGH

Look at the first post on top of this page when i replied to Bionic. It has a nice excerpt from Dat and reasoning behind it.

I m not quite getting the difference btw CJC w DAC n HGH in regard to both their non-pulsing action/effect once in the body

Straight HGH remains the majority preferred agent which C-wDAC comes close to mimicking in its constancy n espec when bolstered w a GHRP which adds a pulse effect

Y wouldn't HGH qualify for the same criticism

U quote DAT on this yet he is the 100/100 as optimal dose proponent ..yet u accept him on DAC but on "gut instinct" reject him on his dosing rec's

 

[qwestor]

Excellent stuff!
Couple things , i don't think this coincides with Dats data, where i'm sure the graphs he has put forward show peps raising GH serum levels much higher than 12.8.

Another thing is how effective(for our purposes) is a short lived spike of GH like you have gotten here from peps, compared to the more sustained spike we get from GH?

As with peps i believe you return to baseline within an hour or so and with GH you don't even reach peak serum levels till 3hrs.

I wonder how important each factor is, i.e height of spike vs length of spike?

As i believe peps don't really affect your IGF1 levels where as we know GH elevates IGF1 considerably...

Great points...likewise consensus seems to b that test GH spikes that occur from different exercise rep intensity protocols seem to b w.o. significant effect as these spikes are too short lived...

similar shorter "time under curve" may compromise these seemingly encouraging lab results....if as time under tension is important in exercise effect...time under curve is crucial in translating these lab spikes into actual effects at a level suggested by the numbers in the body

these numbers may b misleading n falsely encouraging ...or at least not reflective or actually an accurate gauge of a much less effective real world outcome

 

[alpha6164]

I m not quite getting the difference btw CJC w DAC n HGH in regard to both their non-pulsing action/effect once in the body

Straight HGH remains the majority preferred agent which C-wDAC comes close to mimicking in its constancy n espec when bolstered w a GHRP which adds a pulse effect

Y wouldn't HGH qualify for the same criticism

U quote DAT on this yet he is the 100/100 as optimal dose proponent ..yet u accept him on DAC but on "gut instinct" reject him on his dosing rec's

There is a huge difference. One being that when you are injecting actual synthetic GH you are not asking or over driving the pituitary to deliver GH 24hours a day. But when injecting CJC with DAC, you are basically asking the pituitary to leak GH constantly and those leves never reach as high as what it would be with synthetic GH anyways so besides just taxing the system not much else is being done.

As far as Dat goes he has a lot of good information but as a physician and someone that has done quite bit of actual research in medical field, i am entitiled to question what i dont think fits. Once again, i have never said Dat is wrong and that 100/100mcg is not optimal. I have said over and over again that before i believe that i will do testing to see if real world data backs or refutes that claim one way or the other.

Also spikes in GH from exercise routines do not spike to these levels of 12-13. Show me a study that shows such a spike. At the end of the day what matters is the total rise in IGF1. That is all. We can sit here and argue and discuss what we want but you evaluate the efficacy of these peptides on how much of a net rise in IGF1 they can cause. As i mentioned earlier studies on tesamorelin show that 2mg daily cause a rise of 110-187 from patient's baseline. My best friend used GRF1-29/Ipamorelin 100/100 three times daily and his IGF went from 167 to 272 in 8 weeks. Yes we are not getting IGFs in the 500-700s as with high dose GH but having a rise of 40% on such a small dose is pretty significant.

I am hoping that with higher dosages and more frequent spikes 3x daily that the IGF can be raised even more. I have not been on any GH or peptides in some time minus the single shot i took this monday. Next week when i test out the 100/100mcg dosage i will also check my IGF level for a baseline. And then will do pepties at a set dosage of 100/100 3x daily for one month and recheck IGF and then will go to a high dose combination of GRF/Ipamorelin for another 4 weeks and recheck IGF again to see if the high dosage increases my IGF from the 100/100mcg combo. That will be a very interesting find

 

[discohornet]

Alpha, seriously man, dying to read more about the antibody formation. I have yet to come across anything about this in my pubmed digging. I have seen quite a bit about the Gh variant that was originally used, but nothing about our current 191.

Anything to point me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated...

 

[alpha6164]

Alpha, seriously man, dying to read more about the antibody formation. I have yet to come across anything about this in my pubmed digging. I have seen quite a bit about the Gh variant that was originally used, but nothing about our current 191.

Anything to point me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated...

Antibody formation is well known accepted issue when it comes to use of synthetic GH use. Most people dont realize that just having 191 amino acids in the same order that our natural GH happens to be must be all that is needed. Growth hormone has a very special and unique 3d structure. Any variation from natural and our own body recognizes it as foreign and will start to destroy it. Now the higher the quality of the GH the less the antibody formation. But there is not doubt that we cant compare the purity of chinese made GH to pharm grade Serostim. And there are many studies that show that even pharm grade GH will cause antibody formation.

My personal experience for myself and my patients have always been the following. When i started using 5iu of Rips daily split twice a day my IGF was in the high 600s. After 6 months of continous use, the levels started to drop and i had to bump up the daily usage to maintain that level. I had gotten up to 10 iu total daily and my IGF was in the low 600s. So basically i had to use twice as much to maintain the same amount of IGF compared to beginning as a virgin. This is one reason it is recommended to come off GH for 4-6 weeks every three or four months. The break does allow the anti-bodies to clear and give the system a break and every time i have restarted GH after a good break the IGF rises very quickly with the lower dosage.

Here is a study that shows patients developing antibodies to even pharm grade GH:



Growth hormone antibodies formation in patients treated with recombinant human growth hormone.

Ahangari G, Ostadali MR, Rabani A, Rashidian J, Sanati MH, Zarindast MR.


Source

Department of Molecular Medicine and Immunology, National Research Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology[email protected]


Abstract

Human growth hormone (hGH) is normally produced by acidophilic cells of the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland. Recombinant DNA technology has made it possible to produce rhGH. There have been reports of immunological reactions in patients treated with rhGH. For this reason, it is necessary to check sera of patients for presence of antibody against rhGH. Forty-seven children were treated for up to 6 months with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH-Novo), 0.1 IU/Kg body weight, subcutaneously, three times weekly. The magnitude of growth response was similar to those expected from clinical experience with pituitary growth hormone. We examined sera for specific antibodies against rhGH by ELISA methods. Four patients developed serum antibodies against growth hormone. The analysis of these four sera by Dot blotting method also showed presence of antibodies against rhGH. In the sera of treated patients, pre-incubated with different concentration of rhGH, specific antibodies were detected by neutralizing assay. This finding was confirmed by ELISA technique. In conclusion, the main concern with anti-GH antibodies could be their ability to neutralize circulating growth hormone and inhibition its growth promoting effect.

 

[alpha6164]

Here is another study where they talk and studied the actual structural integrity of Genotropin and saw that it still had protein substitutions and not a 100% match which causes antibody formations.



Mass spectrometrical analysis of recombinant human growth hormone (Genotropin®) reveals amino acid substitutions in 2% of the expressed protein
Abstract

Background

The structural integrity of recombinant proteins is of critical importance to their application as clinical treatments. Recombinant growth hormone preparations have been examined by several methodologies. In this study recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH; Genotropin®), expressed in E. coli K12, was structurally analyzed by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and MALDI-TOF-TOF, LC-MS and LC-MS/ MS sequencing of the resolved peptides.

Results

Electrospray LC-MS analysis revealed one major protein with an average molecular mass of 22126.8 Da and some additional minor components. Electrospray LC-MS/MS evaluation of the enzymatically digested Genotropin® sample resulted in the identification of amino acid substitutions at the residues M14, M125, and M170; di-methylation of K70 (or exchange to arginine); deamidation of N149, and N152, and oxidation of M140, M125 and M170. Peak area comparison of the modified and parental peptides indicates that these changes were present in ~2% of the recombinant preparation.

Conclusion

Modifications of the recombinant human growth hormone may lead to structural or conformational changes, modification of antigenicity and development of antibody formation in treated subjects. Amino acid exchanges may be caused by differences between human and E. coli codon usage and/or unknown copy editing mechanisms. While deamidation and oxidation can be assigned to processing events, the mechanism for possible di-methylation of K70 remains unclear.

 

[rock75]

That is a very good question. The reason i did that is because i think there lies a hidden gold mine that people are under dosing the GHRH. Once again i may be all wrong. Many people for example think that tesamorelin and ipamorelin are in the same family just because their name ends in -relin. This is completely wrong. Tesamorelin is same family of mod GRF and ipamorelin is a GHRP. So when Merck got approval for the 2mg of tesamorelin single dosage i started thinking to bump up the GHRH.

If i had ipamorelin on hand, i would have used 500/500mcg of GRF/Ipa but i knew that with GHRP-2 the hunger side effects would have been insane and just didnt wanna go higher than 250mcg. My best friend has Ipa/GRF from Ergo on hand and i am going to test that as well at a high dosage like 500/500mcg of each to see if bumping up the GHRP family has any effect.

There are still a lot of questions to be answered, but the bottom line is that it is all very exciting to me. Most important question for me at this point is to find the lowest possible dose that will give me a significant serum GH rise we are talking more than 8.0. If 100/100mcg of each gives a rise of more than 8.0 then hell no reason to use 5x the amount for 50% more. But it is all here say until we test it.

Alpha, again appreciate you doing these test brotha!!

Question: In your testing do you have plans to have one higher than the other then do the opposite to see what is the driving factor in the highest available spike...

1 test would be 500mcg IPA + 100 Mod Grf 1-29
2nd test would be 100mcg IPA + 500 Mod Grf 1-29

just a thought

 

[alpha6164]

Alpha, again appreciate you doing these test brotha!!

Question: In your testing do you have plans to have one higher than the other then do the opposite to see what is the driving factor in the highest available spike...

1 test would be 500mcg IPA + 100 Mod Grf 1-29
2nd test would be 100mcg IPA + 500 Mod Grf 1-29

just a thought

Trust me it definitely has crossed my mind. The thing is that i have come up with 20 different combos to test lol. So have to get the big ones out of the way first. These are the tests i am planning in the next two weeks:

1) 100/100mcg of GRF/GHRP-2
followed by

2) Tesamorelin 2mg. With this i may do one at 40min and another at 3 hours to get two data points since it is a long acting medication.

A lot will depend on the low dose 100/100 results. If it comes back within 10% of 12.8 then we know that giving 5x the dose makes no difference. IF it comes back significantly lower, then the next test will be a very high dose combo like 1mg GRF/1mg Ipamorelin and see what that shows

 

[raw33man]

are you going to do a test where you can find out how long MOD and GHRP peak in your system ? like do the same protocol as your first one but 2 hours later or something.

Thanks bro. you deserve to be a featured member

 

[alpha6164]

are you going to do a test where you can find out how long MOD and GHRP peak in your system ? like do the same protocol as your first one but 2 hours later or something.

Thanks bro. you deserve to be a featured member

Yes for sure. Once i figure out the "optimal" dose as far as the one that gives the highest peak, i will repeat it with a 40min and a 3 hour test to see where things stand.

And thank you, i dont do any of this for recognition. I just like everyone to be as informed as possible. Just a little over a year ago everybody was buying into Stephen Murphys garbage GH and nobody wanted to actual test things to make sure. With Osiris and I pushing for more testing and posting our own results now it has become a common place not fall for bull shit.

 

[qwestor]

ALPHA MAN

THANKS....seriously for your needed informative contributions n open explorers mind...this is something new we will all benefit from...my best to you

 

[raw33man]

Do you folks think Id see better results running 2mg of Ipam a day, instead of 1mg Ipam + 500 cjc a day

 

[GtMuscle]

I think the second, because it work sinergically. The general concept is "combo is better than alone"

 

[alpha6164]

Do you folks think Id see better results running 2mg of Ipam a day, instead of 1mg Ipam + 500 cjc a day

I believe the combo of a GHRP and GHRH always gives a better result than a single one. You might get even better results with 500/500mg of Ipa/GRF twice a day Same total daily dosage but two nice spikes.

 

[alpha6164]

Well 2nd round of testing done this morning.

To keep things as close as to same conditions as prior test i did the following:

1) Opened two fresh vials of GRF and GHRP-2 even though the ones from last week are basically full i didnt want possibility of products being degraded to come in to question.

2) 100/100mcg of GRF/GHRP-2 was taken SQ at 9:25am and at 10:05am blood draw. So the same 40min interval as before.

3) I have been off GH for more than 6 weeks and minus the single shot of peptides last week have not done anything else so besides serum GH, i also tested for a baseline IGF for future testing.


We will know tomorrow what the result will be. I am super excited. It would be awesome if we could achieve same spike with the lower dosage. I also received a vial of tesamorelin from Phil (thank you Ergo) that will test out soon