Depends on quality of your peptides, timing, and of course dosage.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*.If taking them both how many i/us would your gland release compared to gh?
Im meaning at each shoot ?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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).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.
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.
These studies were observing solely "growth" in growth hormone deficient children. While bone obviously factors into growth, observance of stature is also necessary.1. These are studies on bone growth rate in children.
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".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).
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!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.
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: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'll answer your dilemma with two words: Lab results.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 dont see where he spoke directly against pulsatile GH release?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?
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|How many times per day do you dose your Ipamorelin and Mod GRF 1-29 (CJC 1295 no dac)?||Peptides and Growth Factors||19|
|So many peptides, so little time.||Peptides and Growth Factors||3|
|M||Cialis and it's many uses||Peptides and Growth Factors||0|
|H||How Many I.U.'s in 2mg HCG?||Peptides and Growth Factors||2|
|D||IGF-1 LR3 Does it work or not? Too many opposing opinions||Peptides and Growth Factors||21|