High doses of GH, for offseason mass

chris250 · Apr 4, 2003

Hey this is for anyone who has used GH in high doses or a long period of time...

I curious to know if some of the more experiance guys, think that doing high doses (6-9 iu's per day) would be better than doing 2-4 iu's per day...For lets say, 3-6 months...

Im asking because, some people believe that doing just up to 4 iu's for long periods of time is the best way of doing GH. But, I have been reading more about higher doses of GH for shorter periods of time.

For me, I have been doing GH for all my cycle the last 2 years. I have been doing 4 iu's for each on of my cycles. Im kinda ,wondering if I should up the dose, to see better gains or would the sides not be worth it.

What do you guys think about this subject...

Thanks,

chris

MikeS · Apr 4, 2003

I dont think gh is any good for mass, the kind you may be used to getting from AS. Maybe its potential increases slightly with higher doses, but it still is not a good mass gainer. Mixed with slin and AS mass gains are good-but its not the gh thats giving you the mass in that stack.

Ry Roid · Apr 4, 2003

I agree that GH ain't great for mass. If I do use in offseason I use the first 6-10days of the month and that is it. My doses have gone down in last few years and gains keep coming. More isn't always better and just use enough so that it works.

RY

Big A · Apr 6, 2003

I beleive that once you use 10IU, you will never go back to 4IU.

Also, insulin/GH/gear is the most aweosme size building cycle you can do. GH and insulin together work so phenominally well together, you will just explode.

raybravo · Apr 6, 2003

i dont think there is any evidence of gh increasing muscle mass ?

Ry Roid · Apr 6, 2003

raybravo said:
i dont think there is any evidence of gh increasing muscle mass ?

Well I don't know about that? When you are 16 years old and your GH levels are THRU the roof you gain muscle by starring at weights. I think GH is best at burning fat but, Gh will also gain you muscle or else it wouldn't be used in "Wasting" for AIDS patients. Think about it!!

RY

Vein · Apr 6, 2003

raybravo said:
i dont think there is any evidence of gh increasing muscle mass ?

That's a pretty bold statement!

raybravo · Apr 6, 2003

Effects of human growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor I, and diet and exercise on body composition of obese postmenopausal women.

Thompson JL, Butterfield GE, Gylfadottir UK, Yesavage J, Marcus R, Hintz RL, Pearman A, Hoffman AR.

Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center and Medical Service, Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Palo Alto, California 94304, USA.

Weight loss occurred in all groups, with the largest decrease occurring in the GH plus IGF-I group (5.6 +/- 1.4 kg). Fat mass significantly decreased in all groups, with the largest losses observed in GH and GH plus IGF-I groups (6.3 +/- 1.8 and 8.4 +/- 2.8 kg, respectively). Despite weight loss, BMR was maintained in all groups.These data show that obese postmenopausal women can lose weight and fat without compromising fat free mass, BMR, or gains in muscle strength, and that GH and IGF-I given together may enhance fat loss over either given alone.

raybravo · Apr 6, 2003

Anabolic Research Update By William Llewellyn Muscular Development November 2002

Anabolic Potency
Studies looking at the true anabolic effectiveness of GH on trained athletes are few and far between. Only one study looking at muscle strength gains is o be found on Medline (an online database of medical studies) that meets the criteria of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted with trained young adults. In this paper, 22 powerlifting athletes were reportedly recruited from a local health club to participate in a study on the effects of GH in trained athletes. These men all exercised for 8-14 hours per week, and had been consistent in keeping up with their routines for at least the prior six months. Of the 22 subjects, half were given a reasonable dose of RHGH(several IU's, according t body weight) every night for six weeks, while the remaining 11 were given placebo injections. All subjects remained on a controlled low -fat/high protein diet consisting of 1.5-2.5 grams per kilogram body weight (g/kg) of protein each day. The investigators also monitored urine samples to be sure anabolic steroids were not taken at the same time. A few people discontinued because of side effect or other unrelated reasons, so a total of 8 subjects completed the six week course with rHGH and 10 with placebo.
Contrary to what some of the strong proponents of this drug might have suggested, the results in this study did not demonstrate GH to have a noticeable anabolic effect at all. Quadriceps and biceps strength did increase significantly for the men, but this occurred comparably for those in both the rHGH and placebo groups. As such, none of the gains could rightly be attributed to the use of growth hormone.

In a second, admittedly less ideally structured study, seven competitive adult weight-trained male athletes were given a high dose of rHGH for two weeks. The amount used measured .04mg/kg/day, which would equate to 10IU or more for the average man weighing above 85 kilograms (187 pounds). This is quite a formidable dose, in fact, as most athletes will usually limit themselves to four to eight IU per day of the drug due to its high cost and common side effects at higher doses. In this study, subjects had their levels of IGF-1 measured, which did sharply increase with the use of GH. What did not increase, however, was the measure of muscle protein synthesis. Total body protein breakdown did not change either, indicating that the drug had no significant effect at all as an anabolic agent. This study was admittedly limited in duration, however it is still telling given the high dose and nature of the subjects using it.