How many i/u does your body release with GHRP6/CJC

[aminoman74]

If taking them both how many i/us would your gland release compared to gh?
Im meaning at each shoot ?

 

[mexbeast]

i have no idea; but for me that combo worked amazingly well, [only used it for about 2-3 weeks]

 

[Quad-smack]

under ideal circumstances it should approximate to 5iu's.

 

[hemipower]

If taking them both how many i/us would your gland release compared to gh?
Im meaning at each shoot ?

Depends on quality of your peptides, timing, and of course dosage.
A saturation dose (1 mcg per kg of bodywt) of EACH using quality peptides taken without food should result in 3-5 iu equivalence...

 

[123cctv]

If taking them both how many i/us would your gland release compared to gh?
Im meaning at each shoot ?

The question you are asking is impossble to answer accurately. In fact, as your question reads - it's factually impossible accurately to gauge in any form of *exacts*.

First, an IU is a measure of potency and is irrelevant to weight. People ignorantly attempt to compare an IU with the particular vial if GH they hold in their hands. But again, that's irrelevant! For instance, 3IU of Humatrope's rhGH is 1MG, or .333mcg (micrograms) per IU. However other GH manufacturers are different! The GenSci I have in my hand is 3.7mg per 10IU, while in the other hand, GenHeal's 10IU vial is 4.0mg. But again, while these obviously vary, it's still a MG compared to an IU. In other words, it's like comparing "apples to oranges". A microgram to IU - weight to potency are not the same.

Where this should really sink in and become night and day is when you attempt to compare GH plasma levels, commonly referrenced in Units or Micrograms (depending), to that of GH Lypodized powder, also weighed in mg/mcg's. Again, these are completely different!

Yeah I know,...just what the hell does an IU & MG's, have to do with comparing GHRH's to IU's?? Hold wth me please, there is a necessary correlation between the two and completely relevant to this subject. We first need to determine exactly how much GH a normal youth secretes.

Of course the attempt to formulate only worsens and generalizations only may be determined, i.e. total basal growth hormone output and respective amounts to that of the "norm" compared to those with either exaggerated or defieciant plasma levels. What I mean by this is one person's GH may be stimulated via secretagogues and GH levels adequately elevated, while another similarly stimulated and who's levels are defieciant may barely make normal/adequate levels. Of course, on the other hand, one with existing exaggerated GH levels should experience even greater results than either normal or defieciant subjects. See this link: www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/18-2/tariq.pdf

In a nut shell, resutls are determined via your particular bodies secretion abilities and everyone's different!!

Back to IU vs. MG. Since these are completely different, we really should focus on what's considered the norm for youth, i.e. normal growth hormone output.
From the studies I've read, it seems anywhere from 500 - 250 micrograms in a 24 hour period.
See: Endogenous growth hormone secretion and clearance rates in normal boys, as determined by deconvolution analysis: relationship to age, pubertal status, and body mass -- Martha et al. 74 (2): 336 -- Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Still, please keep in mind, the mcg found in your vial's are not the same substance as your body is secretes. If it were, IU of reg. GH Lypodized powder would be incredibly potent!! For instance, let's say our body produces in it's youth, 500mcg every 24 hours as the consensus seems to be AND if we take Humatrope's 1mg = 3IU's, then an euivilent of rhGH is 1.5IU. Yeah, just 1.5IU's would = a youth's 24 hour secretion. Now while I'd love to think our rhGH was that powerful, I can tell you it's not.

So what are we left with? GUESSING ONLY. No one, not even DatBtrue (you know I love you Dat! ) is able to factually gauge an IU to your own secreted GH. Which leaves us only comparing plasma levels after GHRP/GHRH admin. Course, one can also accurately gauge plasma levels, along with IGF after admin of rhGH for comparison between the two.

Maybe this was the question that should have been asked - How do plasma GH/IGF levels compare via rhGH vs. GHRH's? That's the question and only way to compare!

Thus, if you admin X secretagogues adjacent to X rhGH, prompting to raise to similar plasma levels, you may compare GHRH's to rhGH. Of course, you'll find yourself right back to whom you are administering to, to attain "normal" desired levels AND the source (suppliers) of each, thereby producing a nice Monkey.

 

[disgraziato]

The question you are asking is impossble to answer accurately. In fact, as your question reads - it's factually impossible accurately to gauge in any form of *exacts*.

First, an IU is a measure of potency and is irrelevant to weight. People ignorantly attempt to compare an IU with the particular vial if GH they hold in their hands. But again, that's irrelevant! For instance, 3IU of Humatrope's rhGH is 1MG, or .333mcg (micrograms) per IU. However other GH manufacturers are different! The GenSci I have in my hand is 3.7mg per 10IU, while in the other hand, GenHeal's 10IU vial is 4.0mg. But again, while these obviously vary, it's still a MG compared to an IU. In other words, it's like comparing "apples to oranges". A microgram to IU - weight to potency are not the same.

Where this should really sink in and become night and day is when you attempt to compare GH plasma levels, commonly referrenced in Units or Micrograms (depending), to that of GH Lypodized powder, also weighed in mg/mcg's. Again, these are completely different!

Yeah I know,...just what the hell does an IU & MG's, have to do with comparing GHRH's to IU's?? Hold wth me please, there is a necessary correlation between the two and completely relevant to this subject. We first need to determine exactly how much GH a normal youth secretes.

Of course the attempt to formulate only worsens and generalizations only may be determined, i.e. total basal growth hormone output and respective amounts to that of the "norm" compared to those with either exaggerated or defieciant plasma levels. What I mean by this is one person's GH may be stimulated via secretagogues and GH levels adequately elevated, while another similarly stimulated and who's levels are defieciant may barely make normal/adequate levels. Of course, on the other hand, one with existing exaggerated GH levels should experience even greater results than either normal or defieciant subjects. See this link: www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/18-2/tariq.pdf

In a nut shell, resutls are determined via your particular bodies secretion abilities and everyone's different!!

Back to IU vs. MG. Since these are completely different, we really should focus on what's considered the norm for youth, i.e. normal growth hormone output.
From the studies I've read, it seems anywhere from 500 - 250 micrograms in a 24 hour period.
See: Endogenous growth hormone secretion and clearance rates in normal boys, as determined by deconvolution analysis: relationship to age, pubertal status, and body mass -- Martha et al. 74 (2): 336 -- Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Still, please keep in mind, the mcg found in your vial's are not the same substance as your body is secretes. If it were, IU of reg. GH Lypodized powder would be incredibly potent!! For instance, let's say our body produces in it's youth, 500mcg every 24 hours as the consensus seems to be AND if we take Humatrope's 1mg = 3IU's, then an euivilent of rhGH is 1.5IU. Yeah, just 1.5IU's would = a youth's 24 hour secretion. Now while I'd love to think our rhGH was that powerful, I can tell you it's not.

So what are we left with? GUESSING ONLY. No one, not even DatBtrue (you know I love you Dat! ) is able to factually gauge an IU to your own secreted GH. Which leaves us only comparing plasma levels after GHRP/GHRH admin. Course, one can also accurately gauge plasma levels, along with IGF after admin of rhGH for comparison between the two.

Maybe this was the question that should have been asked - How do plasma GH/IGF levels compare via rhGH vs. GHRH's? That's the question and only way to compare!

Thus, if you admin X secretagogues adjacent to X rhGH, prompting to raise to similar plasma levels, you may compare GHRH's to rhGH. Of course, you'll find yourself right back to whom you are administering to, to attain "normal" desired levels AND the source (suppliers) of each, thereby producing a nice Monkey.

I agree that the original poster could have worded his question a whole lot better and more specifically. I assume he wants to know comparatively speaking, how many iu's of rHGH would elicit the same response as a, lets say, 100mcg/100mcg of GHRH/GHRP respectively.
Obviously exact numbers cannot be given. And we would also need to know exactly which GHRP are we using with the GHRH in this "scenario". But we can estimate, based on what we know about these substances: Below is an excerpt of one of Dats earlier posts in his thread, and will explain better. Be aware that I strongly advise that one have a strong basal knowledge of these substances and by no means do I recommend reading only the excerpt below.
From Datbtrue's thread:


Comparing GH administration to GHRP + GHRH administration

Total GH Release:

The Alfonso Leal-Cerro study demonstrated the following GH release:

GHRH by itself dosed at 100mcg resulted in:
(AUC) 120 minutes = 1420 ± 330 ng/ml when we convert that to AUC measued in hours we get about: 25 ng/ml

GHRP-6 by itself dosed at 100mcg resulted in:
(AUC) 120 minutes = 2278 ± 290 ng/ml when we convert that to AUC measued in hours we get about: 40 ng/ml

GHRH + GHRP-6 dosed together at 100mcg each resulted in:
(AUC) 120 minutes = 7332 ± 592 ng/ml when we convert that to AUC measued in hours we get about: 130 ng/ml
The Bowers study demonstrated that a small dose of GHRP (.1mcg/kg) added to a saturation dose of GHRH (1mcg/kg) resulted in the following GH release:

(AUC) 120 minutes = 10,065 ng/ml when we convert that to AUC measued in hours we get about: 170 ng/ml


In comparison to synthetic GH administration we find that:

22iu of synthetic GH results in 495 - 585 ng/ml
Saturation doses of GHRH & GHRP results in 130 - 170 ng/ml

These results indicate that 22iu is between 3.8 and 3.4 more efficacious then a single administration of GHRH & GHRP which means that a single dose of GHRH & GHRP has the potential to produce better then the equivalent of 5iu of GH in plasma.

A dosing protocol of GHRH + GHRP at saturation dose, administered 3 times per day has the potential to exceed the equivalent of 15iu.

Note though that using this methodology GHRP-6 at a saturation dose by itself may add the equivalent of 1.4 to 1.8 iu per administration... or 4.2 to 5.4 iu per day if administered three times.


Peak Concentration:

From the graphs it is easy to see that GHRH+GHRP results in short-term peaks of 80 to 130 ng/ml.

While the synthetic GH study resulted in less pronounced peaks of 53 to 63 ng/ml of longer duration.

 

[123cctv]

I agree that the original poster could have worded his question a whole lot better and more specifically. I assume he wants to know comparatively speaking, how many iu's of rHGH would elicit the same response as a, lets say, 100mcg/100mcg of GHRH/GHRP respectively.
Obviously exact numbers cannot be given. And we would also need to know exactly which GHRP are we using with the GHRH in this "scenario". But we can estimate, based on what we know about these substances: Below is an excerpt of one of Dats earlier posts in his thread, and will explain better. Be aware that I strongly advise that one have a strong basal knowledge of these substances and by no means do I recommend reading only the excerpt below.
From Datbtrue's thread:


Comparing GH administration to GHRP + GHRH administration

Total GH Release:

The Alfonso Leal-Cerro study demonstrated the following GH release:

GHRH by itself dosed at 100mcg resulted in:
(AUC) 120 minutes = 1420 ± 330 ng/ml when we convert that to AUC measued in hours we get about: 25 ng/ml

GHRP-6 by itself dosed at 100mcg resulted in:
(AUC) 120 minutes = 2278 ± 290 ng/ml when we convert that to AUC measued in hours we get about: 40 ng/ml

GHRH + GHRP-6 dosed together at 100mcg each resulted in:
(AUC) 120 minutes = 7332 ± 592 ng/ml when we convert that to AUC measued in hours we get about: 130 ng/ml
The Bowers study demonstrated that a small dose of GHRP (.1mcg/kg) added to a saturation dose of GHRH (1mcg/kg) resulted in the following GH release:

(AUC) 120 minutes = 10,065 ng/ml when we convert that to AUC measued in hours we get about: 170 ng/ml


In comparison to synthetic GH administration we find that:

22iu of synthetic GH results in 495 - 585 ng/ml
Saturation doses of GHRH & GHRP results in 130 - 170 ng/ml

These results indicate that 22iu is between 3.8 and 3.4 more efficacious then a single administration of GHRH & GHRP which means that a single dose of GHRH & GHRP has the potential to produce better then the equivalent of 5iu of GH in plasma.

A dosing protocol of GHRH + GHRP at saturation dose, administered 3 times per day has the potential to exceed the equivalent of 15iu.

Note though that using this methodology GHRP-6 at a saturation dose by itself may add the equivalent of 1.4 to 1.8 iu per administration... or 4.2 to 5.4 iu per day if administered three times.


Peak Concentration:

From the graphs it is easy to see that GHRH+GHRP results in short-term peaks of 80 to 130 ng/ml.

While the synthetic GH study resulted in less pronounced peaks of 53 to 63 ng/ml of longer duration.

While this study is certainly intriguing, not only are there too many unknown variables, but to me this reads as if it was created, even intended for certain synthetic failure. I'll explain.

First, for the study to be of relevance, participants need to be the same in both tests (exactly how many were there?), method of administration identical (yet not mentioned??), time of *day* testing occurred (GH releases/pulses vary) and other issues not addressed. One of which bothers me the most, yet is the most deceiving....

The study fails -- comparison of rhGH via minimal dosing. Dosing 22IU is absolutely ridiculous (insane)!! The body would recognize this as an intrusion! And without going into any other detail about this, suffice to say -- I submit new users dosing 2IU would/can experience similar results as 22IU. Besides there being only so many receptors the human body can utilize, an intrusion of 22IU would utimately be rejected. I see no other alternative.

Now where 22IU may benefit is after the user started low, then continually ramped up their dosages to combat the severe adaptation and certain desensitization that will occur at high dosing.

Now since we're bringing in Dat, let's note his reference to desensitization even using GHRH's at beyond saturation dosing! Though I will contest, it does not require sat dosing to invoke adaptation and antibodies. Anyhow, the point here is -- you can bet your ass rhGH will do the same! 22IU.... <sigh> What'd they expect?!? Here's the quote from Dat on this thread:
http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/peptides-growth-factors/44875-peptides-vs-gh-2.html
"We also understand that there is no desensitization to GHRH so we can use any dose we want whereas with GHRPs we know (from discussion elsewhere (see my thread)) that we aren't going to experience desensitization w/ 100mcg of GHRP-6 dosing but may at say 300mcg dosing."

Any abnormal dosing is destined to fail when introduced at or beyond the bodies ability to cope. Any respectable labs would have bene privy to this...

 

[disgraziato]

I see what your thinking is in assuming 22iu of rHGH would be rejected as superfluous; however, this isn't actually the case. We agree that there are only so many receptors that are available and "receptive" to the rHGH, and this number of receptors would all be used up during a 22iu dosing, BUT the remaining iu of the original 22iu of rHGH doesn't just disappear. The metabolization of the GH is linear based on dosing....When the original receptors that were used perform their function, other receptors free themselves up to receive some of the remaining rHGH, then those perform and yet others are then available, so on and so forth. The higher amount of rHGH administered, the longer it will remain in the body, the longer basal levels of GH will be elevated, the longer igf levels will be elevated, etc etc....
Thats why the study compares such a high dose of rHGH, so we can "see" functionally, the effects and clearance rates of rHGH as compared to say true cjc-1295, which ALSO elevates basal or trough GH levels in the body measured in days, not minutes or hours as with single digit iu's of rHGH administration.
Obviously, we know that excessive doses of rHGH are less than ideal due to chronically elevated igf levels being linked with cancer. Also, high rHGH dosing, as with cjc-1295 dosing, causes the elevated trough values of GH, also termed "GH bleed", which is more similar to female sex release patterns of GH; Mlae release patterns are of the pulsatile type, as such is what we try to mimic with modified GRF(1-29) and GHRP dosing.

 

[123cctv]

Before I answer the below, be it known that I was almost finished writing up my very long reply to you, and then POOF, my screen went black - power was lost in my home! Thus, since there's no way in hell I'm about to rewrite it all over again, I just wanted to let you know it was one of my best write ups ever! Probably would have been hailed by all BB'ing forums and gone down as one of the all time greats!!

Thats why the study compares such a high dose of rHGH, so we can "see" functionally, the effects and clearance rates of rHGH as compared to say true cjc-1295, which ALSO elevates basal or trough GH levels in the body measured in days, not minutes or hours as with single digit iu's of rHGH administration.

And that's the problem I have here. The comparison is completely absurd. Besides the unrealistic rhGH dosage, I'm stating this study was designed for synthetic failure. The body would not merely deem it "superfluous" but as an unwanted intrusion. All GH secretion would immediately cease and anti-bodies would form to a mega-dose such as that. In fact, even alteration to the immune system would occur in direct response (there are studies for this).

Other problems I encounter are among the previously mentioned and until some one can provide a direct link to this study, those unaswered questions effect the studies summation.

Regardless, since CJC-1295 w/DAC are among the most commonly used in legit labs, we're left with guessing on what GHRH was used. Continually raised levels are great for the female, but for the male? Hardly.

What should have been studied? A more reasonable, even realistic rhGH dosage, say 2IU-5IU. This would have yeilded a far more favorable response. Mega-dosing however is something (most) people need time to adjust/adapt to, otherwise they're just flooding the engine.

By the way, to better mimic the body's GH pulse, an I.V. admin is preferred, not SC. Doubtful they utlized this form of admin.

Lastly, I've not said this before, however be it known I'm not a major fan of secretagogues. Oh they do assist in anti-aging, but for some reason have not been proven in any study (I've seen) to exhibit growth. Yes, there are studies, even utilizing GRF(1-29) rejecting physique alteration, i.e. growth. Whereas rhGH has been shown to create growth - something most BB'ers want.

I can hear people freakin out already...

 

[123cctv]

Yes, there are studies, even utilizing GRF(1-29) rejecting physique alteration, i.e. growth. Whereas rhGH has been shown to create growth - something most BB'ers want.

I stand corrected - did some more digging.

Growth hormone releasing hormone or growth hormone treatment in growth hormone insufficiency?

Endocrine Unit, Middlesex Hospital, London

"Sixteen prepubertal children who were insufficient for growth hormone were treated with growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH) 1-40 and GHRH 1-29 for a mean time of nine months (range 6-12 months) with each peptide. Eleven children received GHRH 1-40 in four subcutaneous nocturnal pulses (dose 4-8 micrograms/kg/day) and eight (three of whom were also treated with GHRH 1-40) received GHRH 1-29 twice daily (dose 8-16 micrograms/kg/day). Altogether 73% of the children receiving GHRH 1-40 and 63% receiving GHRH 1-29 showed a growth response. Double the daily dose of GHRH 1-29 was required to obtain equivalent growth response to pulsatile GHRH 1-40. A significant linear correlation was shown between growth hormone secretion and height velocity on GHRH 1-40 but not on GHRH 1-29 and there was a significant correlation between plasma GHRH and serum growth hormone concentrations during GHRH 1-40 administration. Response to conventional growth hormone treatment in a matched group of children was significantly better than the response after GHRH. A significant improvement in height velocity was observed in the children transferred to growth hormone replacement. Growth hormone remains the treatment of choice in growth hormone insufficiency. GHRH treatment may be of benefit in children with less severe growth hormone insufficiency in the presence of pulsatile endogenous growth hormone secretion."


Though, the below was a study I was familar with and what initially spouted off on.


Comparison of growth hormone releasing hormone therapy and growth hormone therapy in growth hormone deficiency

European Journal of Pediatrics

"Seven children with growth hormone deficiency of hypothalamic origin responded to an i.v. bolus of growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH) (1–29)-NH2 with a mean serum increase of 10.7 ng/ml growth hormone (GH) (range 2.5–29.3 ng/ml). Continuous s.c. administration of GHRH of 4–6 g/kg twice daily for at least 6 months did not improve the growth rate in five of the patients. One patient increased his growth rate from 1.9 to 3.8 cm/year and another from 3.5 to 8.2 cm/year; however, the growth rate of the latter patient then decreased to 5.4 cm/year. When treatment was changed to recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) in a dose of 2 U/m2 daily, given s.c. at bedtime, the growth rate improved in all patients to a mean of 8.5 cm/year (range: 6.2 to 14.6). Presently GHRH cannot be recommended for the routine therapy of children with growth hormone deficiency since a single daily dose of rhGH produced catch-up growth which GHRH therapy did not."


I find myself thinking, I could care less about similarities in pulsation cruves, plasma levels, etc, etc. -- IF the product does not promote growth compared to another (all anti-aging benefits aside, which by the way, rhGH has shown to promote as well), why does any of this matter?? If the product isn't performing as well, even at similar prices? My choice is simple.

I should say this, even though I am a fan of one above another, I still utilize both as BOTH have their place in my medicine cabnet (life).

 

[Blade_HST]

Good posts. A couple of things to consider, though:

1. These are studies on bone growth rate in children
2. They are comparing GHRH only to rHGH, and I think it is pretty clear that the GHRH's they are referring to here are too short acting (e.g. mod 1-29 has a vastly longer active-life) AND lacking the synergistic effect seen from co-administration of a GHRP.

 

[123cctv]

1. These are studies on bone growth rate in children.

These studies were observing solely "growth" in growth hormone deficient children. While bone obviously factors into growth, observance of stature is also necessary.
Note: "A significant improvement in height velocity was observed in the children transferred to growth hormone replacement".

2. They are comparing GHRH only to rHGH, and I think it is pretty clear that the GHRH's they are referring to here are too short acting (e.g. mod 1-29 has a vastly longer active-life).

Again, what are you talking about? Didn't you read they were using both GHRH 1-40 and GHRH 1-29?? Yet, "Double the daily dose of GHRH 1-29 was required to obtain equivalent growth response to pulsatile GHRH 1-40".

Where you are accurate on is - yes, they did not test both peptides, i.e. 1-29 & a GHRP, adjacent to rhGH.

I should say this, I was going to address more (elaborate on this further). But I also know there are many within this forum using GHRH/GHRP's (myself included) and I'm not wanting to discourage anyone from using them. Worse, I've found others seem to misinterpret my intentions. GHRH's DO have their place.

If there's any message I wish to convey it's - rhGH has been shown scientifically to increase growth better than secretagogues. That's what we need to chew on.

 

[hemipower]

Here is what I have gathered thus far this year...
Low dose GH a couple times a day is similar to GHRP/GRF use and primary effects will be youth therapy and fat loss...period.

For size and larger goals (healing, etc) then larger GH doses (5+ iu) are needed and I don't know that the quick high pulse that GHRP and GHRH create will do that...

I like to use them BOTH and continually make changes...gh in the morning 2iu then at night before bed do mod GRF with Ipamorelin. After a few weeks do 1.5iu gh in the am and again 1.5iu pwo then peptides same as before when I get to bed. Next, ghrp2 in the morning and post workout and 2iu gh before bed. Next...2iu gh in the am and 2 pwo. no peptides for a week then add them back with ipam and mod GRF again. Fat loss has been great with a good diet and training. Very happy with moods and improved sleep.

If I am way off I welcome thoughts/comments...but this is what I have seen personally and in a friend as well...

 

[123cctv]

Here is what I have gathered thus far this year...
Low dose GH a couple times a day is similar to GHRP/GRF use and primary effects will be youth therapy and fat loss...period.

I sincerely hope this wasn't missed -- YES it has been clinically shown that these secretagogues will assist with the vast majority of the synthetic benefits, including fat loss as you stated. GH has a vast amount of desirable benefits, attainable via both the synthetic as well as the secretagogue!

Where the discrepancies exist and GHRH fails (that I've seen) is that of similar growth by comparison to rhGH. Again to be clear, these studies only addressed "growth" (height) in growth deficient children. However just because one promotes growth better than another, does not necessarily mean the latter is useless. That would be a ridiculous summation. Both have their place and both should be utilized in one's regimen.

 

[aminoman74]

Thanks all for the info.i didnt know that the combo produced 15 i/u's that realy good.


Thanks again

 

[Blade_HST]

Again, what are you talking about? Didn't you read they were using both GHRH 1-40 and GHRH 1-29?? Yet, "Double the daily dose of GHRH 1-29 was required to obtain equivalent growth response to pulsatile GHRH 1-40".

Where you are accurate on is - yes, they did not test both peptides, i.e. 1-29 & a GHRP, adjacent to rhGH.

Exactly, and that is a huge confound, since we know that GHRH alone (yes, even combining two GHRHs) doesn't really induce any significant GH peak vs. a GHRH+GHRP which has a synergistic effect:

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/435300-post9.html

I also find it strange how you can recommend i.v. GH in one thread, and then seem to speak against pulsatile GH release as induced by GHRH+GHRP in this thread - at the same time referring to GH studies on growth velocity in children - even growth hormone deficient children - using regular sc dosing.

Surely, the superiority of i.v. GH is due to the pulsatile/peak response, don't you think?

 

[123cctv]

I also find it strange how you can recommend i.v. GH in one thread, and then seem to speak against pulsatile GH release as induced by GHRH+GHRP in this thread - at the same time referring to GH studies on growth velocity in children - even growth hormone deficient children - using regular sc dosing.

I'll answer your dilemma with two words: Lab results.
Opinions are a dime a dozen...

However because I have had a change of heart, I'm going to stop here out of consideration to the reputable sponsors on this board, including countless users of such.

 

[juicin]

I also find it strange how you can recommend i.v. GH in one thread, and then seem to speak against pulsatile GH release as induced by GHRH+GHRP in this thread - at the same time referring to GH studies on growth velocity in children - even growth hormone deficient children - using regular sc dosing.

Surely, the superiority of i.v. GH is due to the pulsatile/peak response, don't you think?

I dont see where he spoke directly against pulsatile GH release?

 

[cecray3]

So, hypothetically, if I were to dose cjc-1295 @ 100mcg and ghrp-6 @250mcg 3xED, what kind of GH iu equivalent should that produce in an ideal environment? 20+ius?