• 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
esquel
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
1-SWEDISH-PEPTIDE-CO
YMSApril21065
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
advertise1
tjk
advertise1
advertise1
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

Having 2nd throught on investing in HGH for mass.

Ocean cool

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,579
Hope u guys can advice me.

I've research HGH twice & did see it did much in terms of mass.
Yes, i look pump, vascular and full but it soon when off when i stop.

With the challeging ecconomic situation that everyone is experiecing & HGH isn't cheap, i'm unsure if i should I continue using HGH for mass.

Seems like there are better althernatives and half the price. I'e Test, Tren.

What were u guys do?

I'm financially stable.
 
Hgh isn't for mass, never has been, don't know why you would think it is. If you do 10 iu daily with slin then it's a different matter. Gear and food for mass, a little gh to make the gear more effective and keep the chubb off.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
 
GH is not the "holy grail" of mass-building...nor is it a pre-requisite for getting massive, as some would have you believe. Certain individuals (usually those with an agenda) would like you to think that unless your taking huge dosages of GH, your chances of ever getting to be pro size are next to impossible. In fact, GH is not going to add much size no matter how much you take.

Now, GH will add the typical 4-7 lbs (this number can vary) of muscle fullness, which is wholly water (both sub-q and I.M.), but the primary mechanism through which GH builds muscle size is through it's ability to raise IGF-1 levels via the liver. No matter how you slice it, muscle growth through IGF-1 elevation is a rather slow process and won't build nearly the same degree of potential mass as AAS can. In addition, the IGF-1 produced by the body is less potent than the LR3 and DES forms of IGF-1. On top of that, the capacity of the liver to elevate GH levels through GH use is limited.

Now, when using high doses of GH consistently, IGF-1 levels will rise sbstantially...and no doubt, this will help build muscle tissue, but do not believe for one second that this IGF-1 increase is a monster muscle builder...or that there is some magical synergy that takes place when using GH and AAS simultaneously, which will cause your muscles to "mutate".

If I sound like I am slamming GH...I am not. I think GH is a great drug, but this commonly held (false) notion that GH is absolutely essential to getting big is pure bunk. One of the reason why GH is so well-liked is because it produces a variety of effects concurently, which can signigficantly alter ones appearance. These cosmetic benefits (as far as they pertain to BB'ing) are fat-loss and an increase in fullness. So, in the first few months of a BB'r taking GH, he will notice both a visually significant increase in fullness (which makes it look as though he has grown), as well as visually noticable fat loss (most of the time). Furthermore, this reduction in BF% generally makes the individual's muscles appear even larger than they are. So, when this relatively small size increase and moderate BF loss are combined, they cause an apperance change that "looks" more impressive than the sum of its parts. Any further size increases which take place after this initial period will be slow, at best. GH will be no means add 20-30 lbs of muscle fiber to your physique, no matter how much you take or how long you take it for.

With this is mind, only you can decide if these benefits are worth the financial cost. Many think they are, but I also think many aspiring BB'rs place themselves in a position of irresponsible finacial strain because they think they "need" to take GH in order to achieve their muscle-building goals, when in reality they could continue making great muscle-buildimng progress for years without any GH at all.

GH does a lot of great things, but don't be lured into the mentality of thinking that just because you use GH, you are going to automatically be 10 steps closer to attaining pro status.
 
Last edited:
I've to agree with u guys. My rat has invested tons of money into researching HGH. Yes, he did lose fat & look pump and vascular but that all dispeal as soon as he stops.

HGH cannot change the genetic shape of your muscle. With the ecconomic crisis, it can be challenging.

I've to agree that there are better althernatives. Venturing into Test with some Tren would be a better althernative. Mass wise and finance wise.
 
what gh is good for is to take a lot more calories than your maintenance and not get fat... just put on them muscles nicely
 
Not sure how much you were running or thinking of running but 2-4iu/day will always be a good idea if you're 'financially stable'.
 
Well, it's not JUST the HGH that is required for SUPER MASS gains, it's ALSO the INSULIN.

The combination of massive dosages of HGH(20iu+) in conjunction with INSULIN and extreme dosages of anabolic steroids(3-5g total) is what leads to the MODERN FREAK. Make no mistake about it; anabolic steroids alone will NEVER get you to SUPER FREAK STATUS, aka Kai Greene, Phil Heath, Dennis Wolf, Victor Martinez, etc etc
 
There are much more healthier/safer/economical/more efficient ways of reaping hgh benefits without going the synthetic route. I would recommend clinical grade mod-grf/ghrp.

Luckily for me I have a great hgh source (an actual HIV patient) and switch on and off every other month between 25iu hgh IV and the peptides every other month. The hgh source is actually more economical for me which is why I switch on and off every other month.
 
I once read about a guy that was getting 20-40 kits per week for over 4yrs! He said that he had access to more GH than most could ever dream of. He was on GH for over a year, 6 IU 5 on/2 off...but he realized that although he did lean out, and slept better, it wasn't worth the hype! It wasn't worth the 6-700$ people were paying for a kit! Unless you are on an anti aging regiment, medically need it, an athlete, or on a competitive stage...there is really no need to spend your savings! Just his opinion i guess!!! =)
 
imagine that a guy working for a peptide company thinks peptides are better than GH:D
 
AAS yield best gains.

AAS + GH yields high quality gains - your body will recomp and appear cosmetically superior to just aas alone.

AAS + GH + Slin yields the best muscle hypertrophy inducing environment you can attain through accessible compounds.

You do risk skewing 'your look' by going overboard with this trio and certain aesthetics could get lost in the process

Most BB's get so tunneled vision that they will just keep stepping on the gas and disregard a look that could have been their 'best' in pursuit to utmost muscle mass accrual.

I wont lie and say I am NOT one of those -- but take small steps in getting there.

Seems like when you pedal to the metal on all 3 compounds in higher doses for yrs --- the body gets very distorted and if you ever decide to be 'normal' again --- your physique will look perhaps pretty haggard...

-FF
 
imagine that a guy working for a peptide company thinks peptides are better than GH:D

You can't just come right out and say one compound is better than another. If you had ever used Clinical grade peptides (not that Chinese crap 99% of them sell) you would be amazed.
 
I once read about a guy that was getting 20-40 kits per week for over 4yrs! He said that he had access to more GH than most could ever dream of. He was on GH for over a year, 6 IU 5 on/2 off...but he realized that although he did lean out, and slept better, it wasn't worth the hype! It wasn't worth the 6-700$ people were paying for a kit! Unless you are on an anti aging regiment, medically need it, an athlete, or on a competitive stage...there is really no need to spend your savings! Just his opinion i guess!!! =)

If you can find an HIV patient who is willing to sell their pharm grade hgh its definitely worth it. My guy gets prescribed 6mg a day! Equivalent to 18 iu! I pay $300 for 1000iu every other or every third month.
 
gh+slin +androgens mixed with anabolic like sust will pack on the muscle as long as your food and rest is on point ..Future freak has it about right ..Im a pedal to the metal guy need to be thick in the super heavys
 
GH is not the "holy grail" of mass-building...nor is it a pre-requisite for getting massive, as some would have you believe. Certain individuals (usually those with an agenda) would like you to think that unless your taking huge dosages of GH, your chances of ever getting to be pro size are next to impossible. In fact, GH is not going to add much size no matter how much you take.

Now, GH will add the typical 4-7 lbs (this number can vary) of muscle fullness, which is wholly water (both sub-q and I.M.), but the primary mechanism through which GH builds muscle size is through it's ability to raise IGF-1 levels via the liver. No matter how you slice it, muscle growth through IGF-1 elevation is a rather slow process and won't build nearly the same degree of potential mass as AAS can. In addition, the IGF-1 produced by the body is less potent than the LR3 and DES forms of IGF-1. On top of that, the capacity of the liver to elevate GH levels through GH use is limited.

Now, when using high doses of GH consistently, IGF-1 levels will rise sbstantially...and no doubt, this will help build muscle tissue, but do not believe for one second that this IGF-1 increase is a monster muscle builder...or that there is some magical synergy that takes place when using GH and AAS simultaneously, which will cause your muscles to "mutate".

If I sound like I am slamming GH...I am not. I think GH is a great drug, but this commonly held (false) notion that GH is absolutely essential to getting big is pure bunk. One of the reason why GH is so well-liked is because it produces a variety of effects concurently, which can signigficantly alter ones appearance. These cosmetic benefits (as far as they pertain to BB'ing) are fat-loss and an increase in fullness. So, in the first few months of a BB'r taking GH, he will notice both a visually significant increase in fullness (which makes it look as though he has grown), as well as visually noticable fat loss (most of the time). Furthermore, this reduction in BF% generally makes the individual's muscles appear even larger than they are. So, when this relatively small size increase and moderate BF loss are combined, they cause an apperance change that "looks" more impressive than the sum of its parts. Any further size increases which take place after this initial period will be slow, at best. GH will be no means add 20-30 lbs of muscle fiber to your physique, no matter how much you take or how long you take it for.

With this is mind, only you can decide if these benefits are worth the financial cost. Many think they are, but I also think many aspiring BB'rs place themselves in a position of irresponsible finacial strain because they think they "need" to take GH in order to achieve their muscle-building goals, when in reality they could continue making great muscle-buildimng progress for years without any GH at all.

GH does a lot of great things, but don't be lured into the mentality of thinking that just because you use GH, you are going to automatically be 10 steps closer to attaining pro status.

I have to say HGH has helped me a lot but I use far greater amounts than most and dose IV which makes a difference btw.

I find IGF-1 DES and lR3 completely useless. Just about all of it goes systematic. It might help with soft tissue growth and possibly give you a big bloated gut, but who wants that? Sure it may help in pct but I think hgh would be better suited. The tenary complex (igf-bp3) may be very helpful in building muscle if taken at a high enough dose as just about all of it stays local. I believe right now its only used in children with stunted growth and is very expensive. I don't know of anyone who has used it but if the price comes down in the future it just might be the thing to look for.

As for the "mutation" it does exist but only a pro would desire it. Elevations of HGH cause very significant insulin resistance and gives the appearance of a big look, but is really just intramuscular fat. Intact that huge jump in weight
since 94 when Yates won the olympia has just about been fat.

What makes you say synthetic igf-1 is more potent than natural?
 
I have to say HGH has helped me a lot but I use far greater amounts than most and dose IV which makes a difference btw.

I find IGF-1 DES and lR3 completely useless. Just about all of it goes systematic. It might help with soft tissue growth and possibly give you a big bloated gut, but who wants that? Sure it may help in pct but I think hgh would be better suited. The tenary complex (igf-bp3) may be very helpful in building muscle if taken at a high enough dose as just about all of it stays local. I believe right now its only used in children with stunted growth and is very expensive. I don't know of anyone who has used it but if the price comes down in the future it just might be the thing to look for.

As for the "mutation" it does exist but only a pro would desire it. Elevations of HGH cause very significant insulin resistance and gives the appearance of a big look, but is really just intramuscular fat. Intact that huge jump in weight
since 94 when Yates won the olympia has just about been fat.

What makes you say synthetic igf-1 is more potent than natural?

IGF-1 LR3 does not bind to IGFBP. General "elevations of HGH" do not cause insulin resistance, it is easy to keep insulin resistance very low on moderate doses. What is this IGFBP3 complex you speak of?

I don't agree that any "mutation" exists, this is exactly the type of BS Mike is talking about.
 
IGF-1 LR3 does not bind to IGFBP. General "elevations of HGH" do not cause insulin resistance, it is easy to keep insulin resistance very low on moderate doses. What is this IGFBP3 complex you speak of?

I don't agree that any "mutation" exists, this is exactly the type of BS Mike is talking about.

The mutation is when bodybuilder as a good 2 inches on to their arms along with a nice huge gut. Many will call that a mutation but I call it disgusting.

Sure hgh won't do that at low to moderate dosages unless you go crazy with the carbs, but once you start going 10iu+ I would say it starts to be a problem.

Its called the Tenary Complex and is carried by many pharmacies but its very expensive. As you already know its bonded to a protein and thus will stay local (in the muscle). I believe its currently only prescribed to those who suffer from short stature, not sure on that one though. When we use synthetic igf-1 its goes just about everywhere but the muscle. Which will not only cause unwanted sides such as soft tissue growth ( or what many would call bloating on igf-1) but will cause growth of cancerous cells and prevent cell suicide.

So in other words you pay money to help grow cancerous cells and prevent them from dyeing. Which is why FDA approved IGFBP-3/IGF-1 together only.

Why does IGFBP-3 stay local? IGFBP-3 is a carrier that allows IGF-1 to endure a longer half-life. IGF-1 is cleared rapidly through the kidney if not bonded to a protein due to its low molecular weight. Also since IGFBP-3 has a lower affinity for IGFR it does not negatively impact or interfere with IGF function.

Why IGFBP-3 and not the other 5 IGF binding proteins?
IGFBP-3 accounts for about 80% of IGF-1 binding.
 

Forum statistics

Total page views
559,113,750
Threads
136,033
Messages
2,776,874
Members
160,419
Latest member
knarf447
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
YMSApril210131
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