Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
ddd
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
Anabolic Hormones Store Banner
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
LandmarkChem Email Banner
Medtech Store Banner
Bruce Labs Store banner
advertise on professional muscle millions of hits per month
Professional Muscle Store open now
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

SCIENTIFIC STUDY SHOWING SUBQ SUPERIOR TO IV

strongrhino

Banned
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
1,390
Well here it is: FOR THE NAYSAYERS I HOPE YA CAN READ A REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY BUT IM SURE YOU WILL HAVE SOME COMMENT OR ANOTHER- BUT SCIENCE IS PROOF NOT OPINION!
Medical Department M (Diabetes & Endocrinology), Aarhus University Hospital, Kommunehospitalet, Aarhus University, Denmark.


Medical Department M (Diabetes & Endocrinology), Aarhus University Hospital, Kommunehospitalet, Aarhus University, Denmark.


The current mode of growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy is daily subcutaneous (s.c.) injections given in the evening. This schedule is unable to mimic the endogenous pulsatile pattern of GH secretion, which might be of importance for the induction of growth and other GH actions. The present study was conducted in order to study the pharmacokinetics of different doses of GH following intranasal (i.n.) administration and the biological activity of GH after i.n. administration as compared with sc and intravenous (i.v.) delivery. Sixteen GH-deficient patients were studied on five different occasions. On three occasions GH was administered intranasally in doses of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.20 IU/kg, using didecanoyl-L-alpha-phosphatidylcholine as an enhancer. On the other two occasions the patients received an sc injection (0.10 IU/kg) and an i.v. injection (0.015 IU/kg) of GH, respectively. The nasal doses and the sc injection were given in random order in a crossover design. In a double-blinded manner the subjects received the three nasal doses as one puff in each nostril. The patients received no GH treatment between the five studies or during the last week before the start of each study. Intravenous administration produced a short-lived serum GH peak value of 128.12 +/- 6.71 micrograms/l. Peak levels were 13.98 +/- 1.63 micrograms/l after s.c. injection and 3.26 +/- 0.38, 7.07 +/- 0.80 and 8.37 +/- 1.31 micrograms/l, respectively, after the three nasal doses. The peak values of the 0.05 and the 0.20 IU/kg nasal doses were significantly different (p = 0.007). The mean levels obtained by the low nasal dose were significantly lower than those obtained with the medium (p < 0.001) and the high dose (p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the medium and the high doses. The absolute bioavailability of GH following s.c. relative to i.v. administration was 49.5%. The bioavailabilities of the nasal doses were: 7.8% (0.05 IU). 8.9% (0.10 IU) and 3.8% (0.20 IU). Serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) levels increased significantly after s.c. administration only. Mean levels were significantly higher after s.c. administration as compared with the i.v. and all three nasal does (p < 0.001). Serum IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) levels remained unchanged on all five occasions. Mean serum IGFBP-I levels were significantly lower after s.c. GH injection than after administration of the i.v. (p < 0.001) and the three nasal doses (p < 0.005). Subcutaneous GH administration resulted in significantly higher levels of serum insulin and blood glucose (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the bioavailability of nasal GH was low (3.8-8.9%). An i.v. bolus injection of, on average, 1 IU of GH induced no metabolic response. Only s.c. GH administration induced increased levels of IGF-I, insulin and glucose. These data reveal that a closer imitation of the physiological GH pulses than achieved by s.c. GH administration is of limited importance for the induction of a metabolic response to GH.
 
Last edited:

Benches

New member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
334
I've got my popcorn ready, sitting back waiting for the show to start :)
 

123cctv

Banned
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
745
CLOSE this new thread!!!!

This will be answered in the other thread - just as it should be.

:delete::delete::delete:
 

ojs

Member
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
793
It's interesting that they chose to administer the dosages in the evening as opposed to first thing in the morning. I'm curious as to why?
 

shovelhed82

New member
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
227
It's interesting that they chose to administer the dosages in the evening as opposed to first thing in the morning. I'm curious as to why?
It said administered to patients that were GH deficiant.
 

strongrhino

Banned
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
1,390
This will be answered in the other thread - just as it should be.

:delete::delete::delete:
Why? Cause it shows that you are wrong? Sorry to burst your bubble. Sorry to hurt your feelings. Ya seemed to have no problem calling me names now I am proving a point that needs proving without stooping to your level.
 

mace123

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
1,550
strongrhino wtf if your problem bro?

I have taken the last couple of hours to go through the various IV GH threads that have recently been posted and the only conclusion I have come to is that you are an egotistical conceited woman on her rag....:naughty:

Why keep posting new threads and trying to insult people?:rolleyes:

You claimed matsauo said that he had a medical practice... I read the thread, he said he had medical pratice, NOT THAT HE OWNED A MEDICAL PRACTICE!! About a dozen times you bash this guy saying that "he said he has a pracitce", "he said he was a doctor"....:rolleyes:

You have been bashing others for posting studies that involve rats?!:rolleyes:

"rats and humans often suffer from the same diseases. That’s because humans and rats have the same basic physiology, similar organs, and similar body plans. We both control our body chemistry using similar hormones, we both have nervous systems that work in the same way, and we both react similarly to infection and injury. There’s absolutely no doubt that research on rats and other species has done a lot to advance modern medicine."
How Humans Are Like Rats | A Moment of Science - Indiana Public Media

You started another thread simply to bash a pro muscle member, only to get that thread closed. And now your at it again... way to contribute to the community...:rolleyes:
http://www.professionalmuscle.com/f...cle-forum/65818-anyone-here-iv-their-hgh.html

In this same thread you posted someone elses info without any acknowledgement, very professional! Then you tried to say that what you quoted was proof that using GH IV would turn you into a junky, when in fact all that was said was that if you ever had drug problems in the past, shooting shit up may not be a good idea, whether its GH or freaking multi-vitamins...http://www.professionalmuscle.com/f...18-anyone-here-iv-their-hgh-3.html#post873844

You continually post your credentials as if that is any reason for bashing someone.... What the hell does being a Chiropractor have to do with you being a dick?:rolleyes:

Here another member posted an apology and tried to call a truce, only for you to run your mouth some more. :rolleyes: http://www.professionalmuscle.com/f...vs-sub-q-vs-iv-use-peptides-3.html#post873985

And to top it off. You start another thread at an apparant attempt to bash another member, but wait it gets better. You are trying to say that SQ is better because of this study?! Did you even read what you posted? "On the other two occasions the patients received an sc injection (0.10 IU/kg) and an i.v. injection (0.015 IU/kg) of GH"

Why do you think they are using so much less for the IV dose? Not because SQ is superior to IV, I can tell you that...

You need to take your internet facade down a notch and let people have THEIR OWN OPINIONS...:rolleyes:

And before you jump all over me saying that I am telling people to IV GH please realize that I am not telling anyone to do anything, other than you with your petulant attitude...
 

mace123

Active member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
1,550
Please remember that discussions on this board are NOT a competition....

There is a ton to be learned from sooo many people and many of them have conflicting views, that is not reason to act like a child and try to fight with people (online of all places) to prove that your viewpoint is better or that you are smarter...

Please just accept that people do things differently and drop it. In parts of China people eat monkey brains, thats fucking gross! But does it really bother me? No! Im gonna do me and let them do whatever the hell they think works best for them...
 

shovelhed82

New member
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
227
Please remember that discussions on this board are NOT a competition....

There is a ton to be learned from sooo many people and many of them have conflicting views, that is not reason to act like a child and try to fight with people (online of all places) to prove that your viewpoint is better or that you are smarter...

Please just accept that people do things differently and drop it. In parts of China people eat monkey brains, thats fucking gross! But does it really bother me? No! Im gonna do me and let them do whatever the hell they think works best for them...
Agreed. :cool:
 

10brandonr

Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
264
Without picking sides, this study doesn't prove much as they use dramatically lower doses for the IV administration compared to the SC administration.
 

123cctv

Banned
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
745
Why? Cause it shows that you are wrong? Sorry to burst your bubble. Sorry to hurt your feelings. Ya seemed to have no problem calling me names now I am proving a point that needs proving without stooping to your level.
Bud, this forum will police itself. Right now as I see it, your credibility continues to fade. Currently it's your actions, more than your ignorance that's getting under my skin, which by the way, NEVER HAPPENS. I've tolerated plenty. Ignorance, fine. Stupidity? That pushes buttons.

This new thread you've created should never have been. This topic was being discussed, even exhausted. In the other thread I am still waiting for your 5 confirming studies stating SC is superior to I.V. admin.

What's utterly ridiculous is you just created another thread here listing a study that I'VE ALREADY POSTED clearly showing no loss of IGF-1 via SC vs. IV comparisons. So what's your point?? You've went from having 5 studies under your belt proving SC is superior to IV admin (though I've begged for you to post them) to now posting a study today, that I posted YESTERDAY, further claiming you have 10 studies like this one! Well I hope so! I too have multiple studies confirming the latter, i.e. no loss of IGF-1 via IV or SC administration. Get a fucking clue bud.

Now for the record - IGF-1 is not THE necessary variable to optimal growth. Short lived GH peak values are. Go read the other thread and learn up.

By the way, BigEnough is also waiting for a photo of your body stats, i.e. 5'7 210 5-6 BF?? I'm seriously impressed. :rolleyes:

BigEnough, which you truly are bud :), (if you read this) hope ya don't mind me bringing up your previous query.
 

BigEnough

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
1,291
Bud, this forum will police itself. Right now as I see it, your credibility continues to fade. Currently it's your actions, more than your ignorance that's getting under my skin, which by the way, NEVER HAPPENS. I've tolerated plenty. Ignorance, fine. Stupidity? That pushes buttons.

This new thread you've created should never have been. This topic was being discussed, even exhausted. In the other thread I am still waiting for your 5 confirming studies stating SC is superior to I.V. admin.

What's utterly ridiculous is you just created another thread here listing a study that I'VE ALREADY POSTED clearly showing no loss of IGF-1 via SC vs. IV comparisons. So what's your point?? You've went from having 5 studies under your belt proving SC is superior to IV admin (though I've begged for you to post them) to now posting a study today, that I posted YESTERDAY, further claiming you have 10 studies like this one! Well I hope so! I too have multiple studies confirming the latter, i.e. no loss of IGF-1 via IV or SC administration. Get a fucking clue bud.

Now for the record - IGF-1 is not THE necessary variable to optimal growth. Short lived GH peak values are. Go read the other thread and learn up.

By the way, BigEnough is also waiting for a photo of your body stats, i.e. 5'7 210 5-6 BF?? I'm seriously impressed. :rolleyes:

BigEnough, which you truly are bud :), (if you read this) hope ya don't mind me bringing up your previous query.
No I don't mind at all bro... Your posts have always been a joy for me to read and learn from. I appreciate you sharing your HGH experence and taking the time to help others in a mature kind manner. Thanks bro!
 

homonunculus

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
1,576
BUT SCIENCE IS PROOF NOT OPINION!

<Snip>

Sixteen GH-deficient patients were studied on five different occasions. On three occasions GH was administered intranasally in doses of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.20 IU/kg, using didecanoyl-L-alpha-phosphatidylcholine as an enhancer. On the other two occasions the patients received an sc injection (0.10 IU/kg) and an i.v. injection (0.015 IU/kg) of GH, respectively.
SR,

Science does not generate a proof or "prove" anything. That falls within the realm of mathematics. (The use of the the word "prove" in the context you're using it would not be used by a well-trained biological scientist, except perhaps with rare exception a molecular biologist or geneticist, but certainly not an endocrinologist or physiologist studying a sample of a population of individuals.)

As already pointed out by 10brandonr:

Would you care to comment on the difference in doses used in the study you pasted the abstract from (see above)?...

Any comment applicability of their data to non-GH deficient individuals?...

-Scott
 

disgraziato

New member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
354
StrongRhino-
I think the main point you're missing is the disparity in dosage between IV and subQ. Whereas subQ will release injected rHGH into the system in a controlled manner, resulting in an AUC which is dose dependant and metabolized ALSO in this controlled manner. Administering rHGH IV, again, dependant on dose, will ellicit an immediate, LARGE GH pulse which is metabolized in the same fashion, immediately. Now, we know that GH pulses, rather than GH bleed(increased GH troughs) is optimal for males as it is the endogenous mechanism of GH. Large subQ rHGH dosing will result in more of a half circle releasing pattern, with GH remaining for awhile and IGF levels remaining elevated as well. IV dosing, dose dependantly, will cause levels on a graph to look as though there was no GH rise, but that it starts out at the highest GH level then shoots down as it is metabolized. Theoretically, if you get the dose right, IV dosing will more closely resemble the natural GH pulse for the male gender; GH and IGF activity that makes itself known, but doesn't hang about for extended periods.

Lets not hate on strongRhino. He's just sticking to his guns, which is admirable, sans the insults of course.

It boils down to personal preference:D
 

ketsugo3

New member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
372
Without picking sides, this study doesn't prove much as they use dramatically lower doses for the IV administration compared to the SC administration.
Of course they do and yes it does prove a hell of a lot. You get HG HGH you got all the inserts- it recommends Sub Q, Gee I wonder why?
 

ketsugo3

New member
Registered
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
372
SR,

Science does not generate a proof or "prove" anything. That falls within the realm of mathematics. (The use of the the word "prove" in the context you're using it would not be used by a well-trained biological scientist, except perhaps with rare exception a molecular biologist or geneticist, but certainly not an endocrinologist or physiologist studying a sample of a population of individuals.)

As already pointed out by 10brandonr:

Would you care to comment on the difference in doses used in the study you pasted the abstract from (see above)?...

Any comment applicability of their data to non-GH deficient individuals?...

-Scott
Anytime you introduce anything IV it would have to be lower , that CS- it goes right into the blood. SO what if its on GH deficient, most studies are done for some actual medical reason such as burn victims- not many are done to " help Bodybuilders on steroids to become fereaks of nature" Now Im not trying to stir up anything, but come on guys- IV is not always better- In many ways its dangerous. The humangrade HGH companies recommend things a certain way for a reason.
 

10brandonr

Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
264
Of course they do and yes it does prove a hell of a lot. You get HG HGH you got all the inserts- it recommends Sub Q, Gee I wonder why?
I don't follow your reasoning. SubQ is a very easy and safe form of administration, so that's why its usually recommended in that manner. That doesn't mean it's superior in terms of bioavailablity and/or increasing systemic bioactivity as opposed to IV administration in those comfortable and experienced enough to perform them safely. Inserts for HCG always say for "IM injections only", im sure that proves a hell of a lot too huh?
 

Staff online

  • K1
    Blue-Eyed Devil
  • rAJJIN
    Moderator / FOUNDING Member

Forum statistics

Total page views
500,153,599
Threads
123,037
Messages
2,334,379
Members
154,898
Latest member
Ryanjohnnybravo
Top