• 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
muscleshop
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
pharmacom
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
finestgears
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
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

Reducing waist size

alfresco

Featured Member / Kilo Klub Member
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
3,472
Did you read all the studies posted?
Just asking
Below, this is from The Economist, ‘letter to the editor’ I posted this not too long ago. Perhaps you did not read it or thought it insignificant but that is really a mute point now as this thread has drifted so far off course (not usual) it is about indistinguishable from your original post that was essentially noticing the differences between waists; same person, BUT different poses, not equatable (which is an opinion that I still hold to this day) but did not take the cold plunge into the Photoshopping pool as it would have started a shitstorm, and driven your thread even further off track . . . I still suspect it might have ‘shopped’ but the stage will tell all with Photoshopping being fully accepted, perhaps even encouraged in the various threads regarding female anatomy here which unavoidably leads to unrealistic expectations but would lead to another shitstorm so I will let sleeping dogs lie.

The letter . . .

Peer Pressure

I suspect you have not examined the evidence behind your statement that the quality-assurance system of scientific journals “generally works well” (“Handsome prints”, February 5th). Peer review is the main assurance system for science journals, but remarkably, until about 40 years ago, nobody had studied the process.

When studies did begin researchers found little or no evidence of effectiveness. They did find that peer review is slow, expensive, inefficient, poor at detecting errors or fraud, prone to bias and something of a lottery. It is also anti-innovation, in that truly original studies that win Nobel prizes are often rejected. We know too that journals are filled with statistical errors and studies where the conclusions are not supported by the methods and data. Drummond Rennie, one of the pioneers of peer-review research, summed up the evidence by saying, “If peer review were a drug it would not be allowed onto the market.” Paradoxically peer review, which is at the heart of science, is faith-based, not evidence-based.

Richard Smith
Former editor
British Medical Journal

I met Drummond Rennie (referenced above) thru my uncle a while back when he was, and I think still is, a professor at UCSF but gradually stoped seeing him at my uncle’s parties. We were not close friends but were friendly. He did make an interesting observation when we first met; he asked me if I lifted weights. I said yes. He asked me if I took steroids. I said no. He then asked me if I knew anybody who did. I said no again. Which was true at the time. (I was so lame then that I probably did not even know how to spell steroid.)

He launched into a huge triad on the problems with scientific studies and how poorly they are executed, largely not reproducible, incorrectly documented, it’s. especially in the field of endocrinology, re., and in this case anabolic steroids. There are so many variables it is almost impossible be reach a conclusion that is unquestionable and could not be substantiated. It was clear to him that they worked but the results were inconstant which, again, making it so hard to study. Plus getting money to study bodybuilding pharmacology is very difficult when the are sexy, more important studies to be made, like curing cancer with anabolic steroids and bodybuilding being not even a pimple on life’s ass.

Having flogged a dead horse to death, now is a good time to answe your question and your answer is no, and I have not read all of them for the reasons stated above.
 

b-boy

IFBB Pro / Quadruple Featured Member/ Verified Cus
IFBB PROS
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
10,322
Below, this is from The Economist, ‘letter to the editor’ I posted this not too long ago. Perhaps you did not read it or thought it insignificant but that is really a mute point now as this thread has drifted so far off course (not usual) it is about indistinguishable from your original post that was essentially noticing the differences between waists; same person, BUT different poses, not equatable (which is an opinion that I still hold to this day) but did not take the cold plunge into the Photoshopping pool as it would have started a shitstorm, and driven your thread even further off track . . . I still suspect it might have ‘shopped’ but the stage will tell all with Photoshopping being fully accepted, perhaps even encouraged in the various threads regarding female anatomy here which unavoidably leads to unrealistic expectations but would lead to another shitstorm so I will let sleeping dogs lie.

The letter . . .

Peer Pressure

I suspect you have not examined the evidence behind your statement that the quality-assurance system of scientific journals “generally works well” (“Handsome prints”, February 5th). Peer review is the main assurance system for science journals, but remarkably, until about 40 years ago, nobody had studied the process.

When studies did begin researchers found little or no evidence of effectiveness. They did find that peer review is slow, expensive, inefficient, poor at detecting errors or fraud, prone to bias and something of a lottery. It is also anti-innovation, in that truly original studies that win Nobel prizes are often rejected. We know too that journals are filled with statistical errors and studies where the conclusions are not supported by the methods and data. Drummond Rennie, one of the pioneers of peer-review research, summed up the evidence by saying, “If peer review were a drug it would not be allowed onto the market.” Paradoxically peer review, which is at the heart of science, is faith-based, not evidence-based.

Richard Smith
Former editor
British Medical Journal

I met Drummond Rennie (referenced above) thru my uncle a while back when he was, and I think still is, a professor at UCSF but gradually stoped seeing him at my uncle’s parties. We were not close friends but were friendly. He did make an interesting observation when we first met; he asked me if I lifted weights. I said yes. He asked me if I took steroids. I said no. He then asked me if I knew anybody who did. I said no again. Which was true at the time. (I was so lame then that I probably did not even know how to spell steroid.)

He launched into a huge triad on the problems with scientific studies and how poorly they are executed, largely not reproducible, incorrectly documented, it’s. especially in the field of endocrinology, re., and in this case anabolic steroids. There are so many variables it is almost impossible be reach a conclusion that is unquestionable and could not be substantiated. It was clear to him that they worked but the results were inconstant which, again, making it so hard to study. Plus getting money to study bodybuilding pharmacology is very difficult when the are sexy, more important studies to be made, like curing cancer with anabolic steroids and bodybuilding being not even a pimple on life’s ass.

Having flogged a dead horse to death, now is a good time to answe your question and your answer is no, and I have not read all of them for the reasons stated above.
I understand your point on "flawed studies" but when several different researchers can duplicate results several of times we as human being tend to take faith in those studies, time and time again it has been proven in different various ways that GH IS NOT ANABOLIC.

Now the photoshopping thing... since following GOOB on Instagram I'm getting a keen eye for the background bending and curving that happens to photoshopped pics 📸
 

alfresco

Featured Member / Kilo Klub Member
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
3,472
I understand your point on "flawed studies" but when several different researchers can duplicate results several of times we as human being tend to take faith in those studies, time and time again it has been proven in different various ways that GH IS NOT ANABOLIC.

Now the photoshopping thing... since following GOOB on Instagram I'm getting a keen eye for the background bending and curving that happens to photoshopped pics 📸
Could not agree with you more about more about GH.

And about Photoshop, glad to you are keeping an eye out for foto manipulation.
(You know what to be on the lookout for.)
I am professional photographer and I see it all the time. It is an unfortunate part of the digital age we live in.
 

OuchThatHurts

Moderator / Psy, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
9,784
Don't mean to get in the middle of anything but just want to say for me, at least in my experience, GH has never acted as an anabolic for me. The anabolism I recognized was from traditional androgen and AR receptor based anabolics as it's always been. What I can say for a fact, again this is just me, is that GH has allowed me to greatly reduce the total amount of AAS to achieve a desired goal. In my case, maintaining strength while reducing fat. For example, taking just 400mg of TCyp and 150mg TrenA instead of 600mg of TC and 450mg of TrenA. So it reduces all those side effects and my overall AAS load.

The decreased fat accumulation is a nice ancillary benefit as well. But if I couldn't take AAS and only had GH, I wouldn't likely bother even taking it. It's really the increased efficacy of AAS that is what makes it worthwhile. I saw above @b-boy said it gives you a nice "look". It's very true. Very full muscle with decreased bodyfat definitely makes for a nice look.

It also does some other bizarre things like my hair and fingernails grow crazy fast and I get a lot of earwax. So I have to clip my nails constantly and burn through the q-tips.

I know this is just anecdotal, but GH by itself has not increased size or strength for me. Just made my AAS more effective.
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
25,923
GH for me made me leaner and able to eat more, so that helps growth maybe. I never seemed to get bigger than without GH, so steroids alone were just as effective alone. Another good benefit I felt, it seemed like I recovered a bit faster and DOMS was decreased.
 

marssel

Sponsor / Kilo Club
Registered
Sponsors
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Messages
2,793
That's a good question! You can release all the FFA in the world but if your not burning them they will be stored again.
The higher the dose the more FFA released, the higher the blood glucose will rise. There needs to be more pieces to the puzzle rather than just upping the gh dose (insulin??, L-carnitine??, AAS??)
Agreed though FFAs by hard training MFers will eventually get used as long as the person isn’t gagging down sugar all damn day lol
 

alfresco

Featured Member / Kilo Klub Member
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
3,472
Don't mean to get in the middle of anything but just want to say for me, at least in my experience, GH has never acted as an anabolic for me. The anabolism I recognized was from traditional androgen and AR receptor based anabolics as it's always been. What I can say for a fact, again this is just me, is that GH has allowed me to greatly reduce the total amount of AAS to achieve a desired goal. In my case, maintaining strength while reducing fat. For example, taking just 400mg of TCyp and 150mg TrenA instead of 600mg of TC and 450mg of TrenA. So it reduces all those side effects and my overall AAS load.

The decreased fat accumulation is a nice ancillary benefit as well. But if I couldn't take AAS and only had GH, I wouldn't likely bother even taking it. It's really the increased efficacy of AAS that is what makes it worthwhile. I saw above @b-boy said it gives you a nice "look". It's very true. Very full muscle with decreased bodyfat definitely makes for a nice look.

It also does some other bizarre things like my hair and fingernails grow crazy fast and I get a lot of earwax. So I have to clip my nails constantly and burn through the q-tips.

I know this is just anecdotal, but GH by itself has not increased size or strength for me. Just made my AAS more effective.
Like I said in an earlier post here(?), where I used epoxy as an analogy, HGH is merely a catalyst.

My opinion as I have never used it and I never will. The risk to reward ratio is far too great for me.
 

Elvia1023

Featured Member / Supp Guru / Board Supporter
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Board Supporter
Verified Customer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
25,923
Don't mean to get in the middle of anything but just want to say for me, at least in my experience, GH has never acted as an anabolic for me. The anabolism I recognized was from traditional androgen and AR receptor based anabolics as it's always been. What I can say for a fact, again this is just me, is that GH has allowed me to greatly reduce the total amount of AAS to achieve a desired goal. In my case, maintaining strength while reducing fat. For example, taking just 400mg of TCyp and 150mg TrenA instead of 600mg of TC and 450mg of TrenA. So it reduces all those side effects and my overall AAS load.

The decreased fat accumulation is a nice ancillary benefit as well. But if I couldn't take AAS and only had GH, I wouldn't likely bother even taking it. It's really the increased efficacy of AAS that is what makes it worthwhile. I saw above @b-boy said it gives you a nice "look". It's very true. Very full muscle with decreased bodyfat definitely makes for a nice look.

It also does some other bizarre things like my hair and fingernails grow crazy fast and I get a lot of earwax. So I have to clip my nails constantly and burn through the q-tips.

I know this is just anecdotal, but GH by itself has not increased size or strength for me. Just made my AAS more effective.

I am exactly the same with HGH. The ear wax for me is actually an issue so I have to keep on top of it because I go deaf and it causes tinnitus for me. My nose hair on HGH is crazy :D It helps create a nice look but the fatigue I get from it outweighs all of the benefits. As it's already been posted it helps create a certain look and is indirectly "anabolic". So whilst it may help people get bigger and look better I wouldn't consider it anabolic as in directly muscle building. Although I wouldn't debate someone on this because if you look up the definition "anabolic" HGH definitely should be included. People often think anabolic solely means muscle building but it can mean multiple things including bone growth. No one can't say that it also can't help you grow even if that is just from water retention alone. Now sure will it directly promote muscle growth... not really... but arguing over this is a bit silly in many ways because it does help you grow through a variety of pathways.
 

OuchThatHurts

Moderator / Psy, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
9,784
I am exactly the same with HGH. The ear wax for me is actually an issue so I have to keep on top of it because I go deaf and it causes tinnitus for me. My nose hair on HGH is crazy :D It helps create a nice look but the fatigue I get from it outweighs all of the benefits. As it's already been posted it helps create a certain look and is indirectly "anabolic". So whilst it may help people get bigger and look better I wouldn't consider it anabolic as in directly muscle building. Although I wouldn't debate someone on this because if you look up the definition "anabolic" HGH definitely should be included. People often think anabolic solely means muscle building but it can mean multiple things including bone growth. No one can't say that it also can't help you grow even if that is just from water retention alone. Now sure will it directly promote muscle growth... not really... but arguing over this is a bit silly in many ways because it does help you grow through a variety of pathways.
Just sharing my experience with it is all. I wasn't trying to take the piss out of the discussion. And I've never done 10-15+iu's a day so that may be different. This was nothing scientific. And ya, nose hairs..oy. Beard is same. Grows like thicket. I like to shave. The hairs on my neck grow in every direction. Miserable. But I do like that it allows me to lighten the diet belt I've kept on so long. I'm still strict but I know that an occasional eating session isn't the death of two weeks of progress. I'll probably never off it. I don't want to pay for a script but I will.
 

Cabron

Well-known member
Registered
Newbies
Joined
Oct 26, 2021
Messages
267
indirectly I guess by allowing me to eat more food (food really being the reason though)

Directly?......NO!


when dieting - in a significant calorie deficit, do you believe that a higher dose of GH, say 10iu at once would illicit a greater fat loss effect than say, 5iu?
 

b-boy

IFBB Pro / Quadruple Featured Member/ Verified Cus
IFBB PROS
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
10,322
when dieting - in a significant calorie deficit, do you believe that a higher dose of GH, say 10iu at once would illicit a greater fat loss effect than say, 5iu?
A double edged sword, free more fatty acids, cause higher blood glucose and more insulin resistance. Better recovery, more lethargic (harder to train). Find your sweet spot with the dosing
 

Cabron

Well-known member
Registered
Newbies
Joined
Oct 26, 2021
Messages
267
A double edged sword, free more fatty acids, cause higher blood glucose and more insulin resistance. Better recovery, more lethargic (harder to train). Find your sweet spot with the dosing
thank you sir
 

Staff online

  • K1
    Blue-Eyed Devil

Forum statistics

Total page views
533,207,657
Threads
130,737
Messages
2,617,304
Members
158,364
Latest member
MyTastyBits
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
Leader Powder Store email banner
Prowrist straps store banner
Advertise Here
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
AQ3 email Banner
pomps
rawhormone
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
thc
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
ODINBanner-PM1
ashp131
Advertise Here
Top