GH related question (confused)

[weltweite]

.

 

[DatBtrue]

I was originally going to do my GH cycle at 4iu a day for a 5 day on, 2 day off split..

I'm naturally lean and wanting to use it in a bulker.. (not for fat loss) and I will be doing it with Slin and AAS.

However now I'm hearing its better to do bigger shots 3x a week instead. For me that would be, 6.5iu 3x a week equaling the 20iu


Inspite of reading, I failed to grasp the actual concept of why its a better idea to do 3x a week. Wouldn't that mean less stability of GH in the body?

You need on/off periods with GH. That means periods when GH is high and when it drops back to some base level.

If your doses are lower you can achieve on/off by dosing GH spaced out everyday. If they are even lower you can do multiple times per day.

If you want to use a larger dose though the GH in plasma rises and is elevated for 24 hours. So that is why with large dosing EOD is better.

6.5iu doesn't qualify as a large dose. It will elevate GH for 12 hours.

You might find the following conversation helpful: http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?p=488753#post488753

 

[muscledoc1]

What if one can only afford 18iu's a week,would 9iu's 2xweek should be good?-or 4xweek post workout of 4.5iu's?-which one would you suggest?

 

[weltweite]

Dat, whats your opinion on what was said in this post?:

A post by Carl (aka Triceptor) on another board with all due respect:



The most credible research we have that shows any glimpse of what works best with frank GH injections is derived from idiopathic short stature studies. Several studies have shown that regularity of injections may actually be counter productive. In one such study two groups of children were given one of two dose of GH - 5IU's a day ED for 6 month or 5IU's every 4th day. The latter experience significantly more growth. Other studies have pointed to this as a result of the body's possibly becoming less sensitive to the effects of continuous GH presence.

If we extrapolate these results and apply them to our own goals it appears that a more random injections schedule may be more effective at bestowing the desired effects of GH administration.

Men pulse GH about every 3 hours and women even more frequently. The amplitude of those pulses vary in size at different periods of the month. I have experimented with a more random injection schedule and have good results. I took my daily dose and skipped a number of days - this varied - I would skip 2, 3 or even 4 days but the day I injected my GH I accumulated the doses from the missed days into that one day I injected. I was using very conservative 2IU's a day. If I skipped three days I injected the 6IU's that day. Of course I observed sensible timing - first thing AM, PWO and before bed. I did not have sides when I used GH. Although my dose were very conservative by any standard IMHO a more random injection schedule will get better results with less sides.

Carl

 

[DatBtrue]

There is a lot of research in the field of growth hormone, growth hormone receptors & intracellular signaling as well as research on animals. In addition there is a lot of clinical research on human beings with deficiencies. It is inaccurate to state that the "most credible research" is centered on a study or three that support an all over the place dosing scheme.

If we are going to give someone in our community credit for discovering that growth hormone works better when it is administered every other day then we should give it to MassiveG who stumbled upon it and shared it with the community many years ago.

On & off growth hormone & resensitization is something I have discussed from the scientific literature as well as other things that are needed to reset all the intracellular signaling pathways.

So there is nothing new in Carl's "discovery" in that regard.

Lets see... we have growth hormone...we have growth hormone binding proteins (sloughed off receptors)...we have prolactin binding proteins (which bind to GH w/ high affinity). Those factors will determine how much GH is free. Perhaps 90%+ of GH ends up bound by the binding proeins.

We have growth hormone receptor synthesis. We have growth hormone receptors that translocate to the cellular membrane where they can bind with growth hormone. We have growth hormone receptors that actually move to a cell nucleus and mediate events without ever coming in contact with a GH ligand.

Then we have the "what happens when GH binds to a receptor events". These are the intracellular signaling pathways all of which need the absence of GH to resentsitize and some of which also require the presence of insulin in the trough period.

These signaling pathways are activated proteins which move to the cell nucleus and the events they mediate are gene transcriptions which will result in the synthesis of proteins which mediate metabolism events and even result in IGF-1 synthesis.

We also have an event that occurs when too much GH is present. Too much GH clogs up the receptors and renders them null. So as strange as it may seem to most higher and higher levels of GH may actually result in less activity then lower doses.

Yet all people seem to be capable of is discussing amount and timing of the growth hormone ligand.

At any rate when one speaks of results ...such as "the results I had were better with this scheme then that" it is appropriate to ask them to quantify and as a first step to identify precisely what those results entailed.

Was it fat loss? Was it recovery? Was it feeling good for an older/deficient person? Was it muscle growth? Etc.

Then some claims need to be met with a skeptical eye such as muscle growth. GH needs testosterone and at least periods of high physiological/ low pharmacological levels of insulin to be anabolic in a bodybuilding sense.

I am pleased that Carl experimented with his GH dosing. I really don't see a reason to be so variable sometimes skipping 2 days sometimes 4 other days 3 with doses varied.

I don't really see support for the statement that "The amplitude of those pulses vary in size at different periods of the month". When I see stuff like this I get concerned. It makes me think of Suzanne Summers and how she ruined the good parts of her hormone replacement book by including sections on the Wiley protocol in estrogen replacement and treating such non-science/non-medecine gimmicks as imperatives.

Carl, Carl, Carl...sigh. Did you really have to extrapolate from your sample of one experiment to give the following summary advise?

"Although my dose were very conservative by any standard IMHO a more random injection schedule will get better results with less sides."

Randomness is chaotic. Chaos does not lead to the type of order that leads to complexity. Complexity is required to build a human being. Our biorhythms are certainly worth identifying and duplicating but those biorhythms do not involve events that are random...rather they are predictable, functional and with purpose.

Dat, whats your opinion on what was said in this post?:

A post by Carl (aka Triceptor) on another board with all due respect:



The most credible research we have that shows any glimpse of what works best with frank GH injections is derived from idiopathic short stature studies. Several studies have shown that regularity of injections may actually be counter productive. In one such study two groups of children were given one of two dose of GH - 5IU's a day ED for 6 month or 5IU's every 4th day. The latter experience significantly more growth. Other studies have pointed to this as a result of the body's possibly becoming less sensitive to the effects of continuous GH presence.

If we extrapolate these results and apply them to our own goals it appears that a more random injections schedule may be more effective at bestowing the desired effects of GH administration.

Men pulse GH about every 3 hours and women even more frequently. The amplitude of those pulses vary in size at different periods of the month. I have experimented with a more random injection schedule and have good results. I took my daily dose and skipped a number of days - this varied - I would skip 2, 3 or even 4 days but the day I injected my GH I accumulated the doses from the missed days into that one day I injected. I was using very conservative 2IU's a day. If I skipped three days I injected the 6IU's that day. Of course I observed sensible timing - first thing AM, PWO and before bed. I did not have sides when I used GH. Although my dose were very conservative by any standard IMHO a more random injection schedule will get better results with less sides.

Carl

 

[DatBtrue]

From: p.208 Growth Hormone, Stephen Harvey et al., CRC Press 1995

Seasonality

Although 24-h mean serum GH concentrations may not differ in humans in different seasons 138, Malarkey et al. 306 noted that both daytime and nocturnal GH secretion was consistently higher in the fall than in the spring. Seasonal differences in pulsatile patterns of GH secretion occur, however in cattle. 307, sheep 45, 159 and reindeer 308, but not in horses 64. These seasonal variations appear to correlate more with changes in food intake than with changes in photoperiod or other environmental parameters.

Refs:

138 - Saini, S. Clinical Endocrinology 34 455 1991
306 - Malarkey, W.B. J. Clin. Endo. Metab 73 1089 1991
307 - Kazmer, G.W. Journal of Animal Science 70 503 1992
45 - Bocquier, F. Animal Production 51 115 1990
159 - de Zegher, F. Endocrinology (Baltimore) 124 124 1989
308 - Suttie, J.M. GenComp. Endocrinology 85 36 1992
64 - Thompson, D. Journal of Animal Science 70 1201 1992​

 

[weltweite]

There is a lot of research in the field of growth hormone, growth hormone receptors & intracellular signaling as well as research on animals. In addition there is a lot of clinical research on human beings with deficiencies. It is inaccurate to state that the "most credible research" is centered on a study or three that support an all over the place dosing scheme.

If we are going to give someone in our community credit for discovering that growth hormone works better when it is administered every other day then we should give it to MassiveG who stumbled upon it and shared it with the community many years ago.

On & off growth hormone & resensitization is something I have discussed from the scientific literature as well as other things that are needed to reset all the intracellular signaling pathways.

So there is nothing new in Carl's "discovery" in that regard.

Lets see... we have growth hormone...we have growth hormone binding proteins (sloughed off receptors)...we have prolactin binding proteins (which bind to GH w/ high affinity). Those factors will determine how much GH is free. Perhaps 90%+ of GH ends up bound by the binding proeins.

We have growth hormone receptor synthesis. We have growth hormone receptors that translocate to the cellular membrane where they can bind with growth hormone. We have growth hormone receptors that actually move to a cell nucleus and mediate events without ever coming in contact with a GH ligand.

Then we have the "what happens when GH binds to a receptor events". These are the intracellular signaling pathways all of which need the absence of GH to resentsitize and some of which also require the presence of insulin in the trough period.

These signaling pathways are activated proteins which move to the cell nucleus and the events they mediate are gene transcriptions which will result in the synthesis of proteins which mediate metabolism events and even result in IGF-1 synthesis.

We also have an event that occurs when too much GH is present. Too much GH clogs up the receptors and renders them null. So as strange as it may seem to most higher and higher levels of GH may actually result in less activity then lower doses.

Yet all people seem to be capable of is discussing amount and timing of the growth hormone ligand.

At any rate when one speaks of results ...such as "the results I had were better with this scheme then that" it is appropriate to ask them to quantify and as a first step to identify precisely what those results entailed.

Was it fat loss? Was it recovery? Was it feeling good for an older/deficient person? Was it muscle growth? Etc.

Then some claims need to be met with a skeptical eye such as muscle growth. GH needs testosterone and at least periods of high physiological/ low pharmacological levels of insulin to be anabolic in a bodybuilding sense.

I am pleased that Carl experimented with his GH dosing. I really don't see a reason to be so variable sometimes skipping 2 days sometimes 4 other days 3 with doses varied.

I don't really see support for the statement that "The amplitude of those pulses vary in size at different periods of the month". When I see stuff like this I get concerned. It makes me think of Suzanne Summers and how she ruined the good parts of her hormone replacement book by including sections on the Wiley protocol in estrogen replacement and treating such non-science/non-medecine gimmicks as imperatives.

Carl, Carl, Carl...sigh. Did you really have to extrapolate from your sample of one experiment to give the following summary advise?

"Although my dose were very conservative by any standard IMHO a more random injection schedule will get better results with less sides."

Randomness is chaotic. Chaos does not lead to the type of order that leads to complexity. Complexity is required to build a human being. Our biorhythms are certainly worth identifying and duplicating but those biorhythms do not involve events that are random...rather they are predictable, functional and with purpose.

I agree. I felt the sheer randomness of his dosing protocol isn't really answering any questions. The body does have a specific function, and I don't believe anything in our complex bodies happen by randomness. It would have been better to stick to every 4th day, or do something different, but remain consistent with that dosing protocol to see what the results may be.. (after all its a good step forward when minds dare to try something different. It really helps progress our knowledge base.. It just needs to be done with some kind of consistent pattern)

Thanks for inputing your 2 cents.

 

[JuiceJunkie]

thanks for all the knowledge and yes i have read that more concictent dosing is recommended but the question i have is should it be done sub Q or IM? have seen both and not sure which is correct or recomended

 

[mrsoul]

thanks for all the knowledge and yes i have read that more concictent dosing is recommended but the question i have is should it be done sub Q or IM? have seen both and not sure which is correct or recomended

if you go sub q it leaves a little knot. no big deal though. i know palumbo says to go im.

 

[Jarconis]

even though on paper it talks about taking 16 iu doses at once and what not, in reality, I would think it would be very hard to fight off the lethargy that would be associated with a dose that large.