- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 2,012
©ALL CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE ADMINISTRATORS CONSENT 2002-2025
Dat's - CJC-1295 & GHRP-6 (Basic Guides)
- Thread starter DatBtrue
- Start date
Some questions for Dat
Hi all,
I made my way over here specifically because Dat's expertise - I heard about you on the Superhuman radio show and everything Dr. John said is true - you level of research is outstanding.
I have been slowly reading CJC / GHRP basic guide and I have several questions I hope you have time to answer:
In an earlier post you stated that for anti-aging & fat loss that 50mcg CJC & 100mcg GHRP 6 could be run daily indefinitely - do you feel that is still accurate?
I was reading recently where some stimulants counter the CJC / GHRP 6 - is this correct. I quite often use a combo of caffeine & ephedrine for alertness along with some nootropics, will this negate the low dose CJC / GHRP 6
Are there any nootropics that should not be used with CJC / GHRP 6
I have a congenital low thyroid and often use T3 up to 75 mcg / day - read an internet post where it said T3 would interfere with GHRP 6 and that T4 is better in that there is a synergistic reaction with the conversion of T4 to T3 that is beneficial to optimum GH response to CJC / GHRP, is this true?
and last I have been comparing the pricing of several research companies dealing with peptides and I know you approved of both research peptides and pure peptides - is there a major difference because pure peptides prices are more than double research peptides?
Thanks for you help! - the knowledge and detail you provide is amazing, keep up the excellent work!!
Thanks again!
Hi all,
I made my way over here specifically because Dat's expertise - I heard about you on the Superhuman radio show and everything Dr. John said is true - you level of research is outstanding.
I have been slowly reading CJC / GHRP basic guide and I have several questions I hope you have time to answer:
In an earlier post you stated that for anti-aging & fat loss that 50mcg CJC & 100mcg GHRP 6 could be run daily indefinitely - do you feel that is still accurate?
I was reading recently where some stimulants counter the CJC / GHRP 6 - is this correct. I quite often use a combo of caffeine & ephedrine for alertness along with some nootropics, will this negate the low dose CJC / GHRP 6
Are there any nootropics that should not be used with CJC / GHRP 6
I have a congenital low thyroid and often use T3 up to 75 mcg / day - read an internet post where it said T3 would interfere with GHRP 6 and that T4 is better in that there is a synergistic reaction with the conversion of T4 to T3 that is beneficial to optimum GH response to CJC / GHRP, is this true?
and last I have been comparing the pricing of several research companies dealing with peptides and I know you approved of both research peptides and pure peptides - is there a major difference because pure peptides prices are more than double research peptides?
Thanks for you help! - the knowledge and detail you provide is amazing, keep up the excellent work!!
Thanks again!
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
This thread Then & Now
Basically this has been an evolution over the last 10 months or so...
The basic science has not changed, primarily because it was established long ago. What has changed is the way I would present the information.
You know what I thought when I first posted on this topic on a bodybuilding forum?
I thought "hey most people are familiar with the hormone "growth hormone"...they must be because they run around being obsessed with attaining just the right color top and they seem to post about their mighty efforts to obtain it."
I was wrong. Most young people really aren't familiar with it, but they somehow feel they are missing out if they don't have it...so they gotta have it.
I thought that people would quickly understand the benefit of increasing their own growth hormone naturally and figure out how they might utilize it.
I thought that people would see it as a good thing, especially because synthetic GH was both costly and illegal to posses in a great many jurisdictions.
I was wrong. I was not prepared to have to defend these peptides (hormones)... I was not prepared for the ignorance and the utter imbecility of posters who seemed to chortle about and advise others with much of an air of superiority "just use real GH".
Even recently I was called an "arm chair theorist" by someone.
But that slowly changed...
As I experimented more and more and witnessed what a big difference a restoration of natural GH did for me... I had sleep apnea which required me to drop the muscle building lifestyle, shed excess muscle...and eventually with a CPAP machine I was fine...it [GHRP-6] not only restored me but seemed to reverse some damage from years of choppy choking sleep...
I also focused on bodybuilding (and dosed accordingly) and had conversations with a few bodybuilding guinea pigs that were having huge success by using high doses and combining it into their overall protocol....
I began to regret having exposed these peptides. I regretted it because I feared (and still do) that public exposure would be a bad thing...
So when Carl asked me to do his radio show I declined. I told him my reasons which he considered but ultimately decided in favor of doing a show on them.
But to some extent my fears have not matured, thankfully because they are still not exposed. I always thought MD magazine would do a write-up and some one like Dave P would just put on his guru hat and then all the children that worship at his cult and read MD would jump on the bandwagon....why? ...just because "they" said.
But Dave P. when asked wrote in his column that the peptide sellers were pushing this stuff and that there was not any scientific evidence...and in a year or so everyone will forget all about them.
I ended up posting beyond Anabolic Minds on this topic because a retailer (long since gone) kept copying & pasting my posts... and I understood that the only way to make him stop was just to run an "accurate" thread of my own.
Now this is my threads only home and I have no intention of posting elsewhere. I like Big A and I have researched his product line and it passes with flying colors, in particular the SEO. It is very impressive that he understood many years ago just how beneficial a caprylic acid based oil could be...
...the moderators here are the best and if you need a trainer Phil Hernon is outstanding. Why is he outstanding? The character of the man is about as good as people come.
So although this thread meanders into anti-aging and non-bodybuilding asides on a primarily bodybuilding board I think it works here.
Back to what I would do differently, concerning presentation. I would not have led with CJC-1295. Instead I would have discussed GHRH and then its analogs (this came later), which would have included CJC-1295.
CJC became a sort of brand representing superiority which relegated all other GHRH as inferior.
Even though I have remedied this somewhat by copying my post on GHRH analogs into the first primary position of this thread I still get questions such as yours.
The likelihood that you have CJC-1295 is slim (for reasons discussed in this thread).
But your confusion and I am sure a great many others is that I spent the first part of this thread talking about CJC-1295 exclusively instead of modified GRF(1-29) which is the primary analog sold today.
My protocol from the start never assumed that CJC-1295 was more beneficial if dosed bi-weekly and instead I always spoke of it in terms of it being just GHRH (in any form such as GRF(1-29) or modified GRF(1-29), etc,). I always wrote of it in combination with a GHRP (such as GHRP-6) because of the synergistic pulse...
As a result every place you see me discuss CJC-1295 dosing on a daily or thrice-daily protocol you can substitute modified GRF(1-29). Obviously where I discuss CJC-1295 decay rates and the like they are not applicable.
The only concerns that I continue to possess are with CJC-1295 which raises base levels of GH, specifically I am concerned with high dosing of that compound. This would be in regard to pituitary or excessive somatotroph hyperplasia which might (I feel unlikely...) result in tumor formation (see my article in this thread).
I am much, much more concerned about high circulating levels of IGF-1 which will come about with high CJC-1295 dosing and high dosing of synthetic GH.
I do not possess such concerns in regard to GHRP-6 & modified GRF(1-29) w/ the caveat that mega-dosing is never a good thing for health.
100mcg of (modified GRF(1-29)) & 100mcg GHRP-6 IMHO will not present these types of problems.
No.
Yes. ...but only in the sense that ephedrine will raise blood glucose levels which may hinder fatloss...and GH's lipolysis is blunted in the presence of insulin.
...but why does everyone use ephedrine for fatloss?
Those that consistently stay very very lean do not. Those that are very lean and have been using ephedrine for years are a loud bunch but five years from now they will have rebuilt that "now seen as an organ" fatpad.
By that if you mean interfere with then the answer is maybe. Tell me what you want to use and I will give you a better answer.
Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that that Internet post took the words that when strung together make a fact and put them in a bag and shook them and then posted the result.
No in the sense that T3 will not interfere with GH releaase from GHRH & GHRP-6. I am open-minded though. Have you any science you care to share?
I could answer that question for you but won't other then to say, I have tested PP most recently and have found his products to be very powerful.
With specific regard to his GHRP-2 and his MT-II they are the best I have ever tested.
I found one product that I will not mention by name to be very, very potent and a good addition to the protocol discussed herein.
RP's modified GRF(1-29) was tested many months ago and found to be good quality.
Peptide quality matters. Pricing is not everything and if it is important to you then wholesale is an option.
There is a low-priced retailer that is a not a sponsor here whose peptide quality has been poor in the past. I don't really want to name someone tangentially erratic never-the-less, it skews my research when people report mediocre results so...
supreme; said:
Basically this has been an evolution over the last 10 months or so...
The basic science has not changed, primarily because it was established long ago. What has changed is the way I would present the information.
You know what I thought when I first posted on this topic on a bodybuilding forum?
I thought "hey most people are familiar with the hormone "growth hormone"...they must be because they run around being obsessed with attaining just the right color top and they seem to post about their mighty efforts to obtain it."
I was wrong. Most young people really aren't familiar with it, but they somehow feel they are missing out if they don't have it...so they gotta have it.
I thought that people would quickly understand the benefit of increasing their own growth hormone naturally and figure out how they might utilize it.
I thought that people would see it as a good thing, especially because synthetic GH was both costly and illegal to posses in a great many jurisdictions.
I was wrong. I was not prepared to have to defend these peptides (hormones)... I was not prepared for the ignorance and the utter imbecility of posters who seemed to chortle about and advise others with much of an air of superiority "just use real GH".
Even recently I was called an "arm chair theorist" by someone.
But that slowly changed...
supreme; said:
As I experimented more and more and witnessed what a big difference a restoration of natural GH did for me... I had sleep apnea which required me to drop the muscle building lifestyle, shed excess muscle...and eventually with a CPAP machine I was fine...it [GHRP-6] not only restored me but seemed to reverse some damage from years of choppy choking sleep...
I also focused on bodybuilding (and dosed accordingly) and had conversations with a few bodybuilding guinea pigs that were having huge success by using high doses and combining it into their overall protocol....
I began to regret having exposed these peptides. I regretted it because I feared (and still do) that public exposure would be a bad thing...
So when Carl asked me to do his radio show I declined. I told him my reasons which he considered but ultimately decided in favor of doing a show on them.
But to some extent my fears have not matured, thankfully because they are still not exposed. I always thought MD magazine would do a write-up and some one like Dave P would just put on his guru hat and then all the children that worship at his cult and read MD would jump on the bandwagon....why? ...just because "they" said.
But Dave P. when asked wrote in his column that the peptide sellers were pushing this stuff and that there was not any scientific evidence...and in a year or so everyone will forget all about them.
I ended up posting beyond Anabolic Minds on this topic because a retailer (long since gone) kept copying & pasting my posts... and I understood that the only way to make him stop was just to run an "accurate" thread of my own.
Now this is my threads only home and I have no intention of posting elsewhere. I like Big A and I have researched his product line and it passes with flying colors, in particular the SEO. It is very impressive that he understood many years ago just how beneficial a caprylic acid based oil could be...
...the moderators here are the best and if you need a trainer Phil Hernon is outstanding. Why is he outstanding? The character of the man is about as good as people come.
So although this thread meanders into anti-aging and non-bodybuilding asides on a primarily bodybuilding board I think it works here.
supreme; said:
Back to what I would do differently, concerning presentation. I would not have led with CJC-1295. Instead I would have discussed GHRH and then its analogs (this came later), which would have included CJC-1295.
CJC became a sort of brand representing superiority which relegated all other GHRH as inferior.
Even though I have remedied this somewhat by copying my post on GHRH analogs into the first primary position of this thread I still get questions such as yours.
The likelihood that you have CJC-1295 is slim (for reasons discussed in this thread).
But your confusion and I am sure a great many others is that I spent the first part of this thread talking about CJC-1295 exclusively instead of modified GRF(1-29) which is the primary analog sold today.
My protocol from the start never assumed that CJC-1295 was more beneficial if dosed bi-weekly and instead I always spoke of it in terms of it being just GHRH (in any form such as GRF(1-29) or modified GRF(1-29), etc,). I always wrote of it in combination with a GHRP (such as GHRP-6) because of the synergistic pulse...
As a result every place you see me discuss CJC-1295 dosing on a daily or thrice-daily protocol you can substitute modified GRF(1-29). Obviously where I discuss CJC-1295 decay rates and the like they are not applicable.
supreme; said:
The only concerns that I continue to possess are with CJC-1295 which raises base levels of GH, specifically I am concerned with high dosing of that compound. This would be in regard to pituitary or excessive somatotroph hyperplasia which might (I feel unlikely...) result in tumor formation (see my article in this thread).
I am much, much more concerned about high circulating levels of IGF-1 which will come about with high CJC-1295 dosing and high dosing of synthetic GH.
I do not possess such concerns in regard to GHRP-6 & modified GRF(1-29) w/ the caveat that mega-dosing is never a good thing for health.
100mcg of (modified GRF(1-29)) & 100mcg GHRP-6 IMHO will not present these types of problems.
supreme; said:
No.
supreme; said:
Yes. ...but only in the sense that ephedrine will raise blood glucose levels which may hinder fatloss...and GH's lipolysis is blunted in the presence of insulin.
...but why does everyone use ephedrine for fatloss?
Those that consistently stay very very lean do not. Those that are very lean and have been using ephedrine for years are a loud bunch but five years from now they will have rebuilt that "now seen as an organ" fatpad.
supreme; said:
By that if you mean interfere with then the answer is maybe. Tell me what you want to use and I will give you a better answer.
supreme; said:
Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that that Internet post took the words that when strung together make a fact and put them in a bag and shook them and then posted the result.
No in the sense that T3 will not interfere with GH releaase from GHRH & GHRP-6. I am open-minded though. Have you any science you care to share?
supreme; said:
I could answer that question for you but won't other then to say, I have tested PP most recently and have found his products to be very powerful.
With specific regard to his GHRP-2 and his MT-II they are the best I have ever tested.
I found one product that I will not mention by name to be very, very potent and a good addition to the protocol discussed herein.
RP's modified GRF(1-29) was tested many months ago and found to be good quality.
supreme; said:
Peptide quality matters. Pricing is not everything and if it is important to you then wholesale is an option.
There is a low-priced retailer that is a not a sponsor here whose peptide quality has been poor in the past. I don't really want to name someone tangentially erratic never-the-less, it skews my research when people report mediocre results so...
I've never heard this before, please elaborate (or point to where you do).
Is this true with other beta-2 agonist stims? Al/Clen-buterol?
Why can't you say? C'mon, don't hold out on us!
Thanks dat!
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
Lorken; said:
Blood Glucose
My bitch about it is the effect on blood glucose:
From the metabolic point of view, combined ingestion of caffeine and ephedrine has been observed to increase blood glucose and lactate concentrations during exercise... - Caffeine and ephedrine: physiological, metabolic and performance-enhancing effects, F Magkos and SA Kavouras, Sports Med, January 1, 2004; 34(13): 871-89
The worst part is the variability brought on by cellular adaptive responses:
Cardiovascular and metabolic responses to exercise and consecutive epinephrine infusions 24 hours apart were measured in 7 normal individuals before and following a week's administration of ephedrine sulfate. There was evidence of less beta adrenergic response to the second control epinephrine infusion compared to the first control infusion, and the depression of the rise in blood lactate was significantly different.
A week of ephedrine produced more profound depression of the beta adrenergic responses to epinephrine with significant differences in the rise in blood glucose and lactate, and the pulse and blood pressure responses.
Furthermore, these same responses remained significantly altered when a second epinephrine infusion was performed 36 hours following the last dose of ephedrine. The alterations in the response to epinephrine induced by ephedrine are consistent with the concept of effector cell "subsensitivity," an adaptive response to prolonged excessive stimulation. - Subsensitivity to epinephrine following the administration of epinephrine and ephedrine to normal individuals, HS Nelson, JW Black, LB Branch, B Pfuetze, H Spaulding, R Summers, and D Wood, J Allergy Clin Immunol, May 1, 1975; 55(5): 299-309
A week of ephedrine produced more profound depression of the beta adrenergic responses to epinephrine with significant differences in the rise in blood glucose and lactate, and the pulse and blood pressure responses.
Furthermore, these same responses remained significantly altered when a second epinephrine infusion was performed 36 hours following the last dose of ephedrine. The alterations in the response to epinephrine induced by ephedrine are consistent with the concept of effector cell "subsensitivity," an adaptive response to prolonged excessive stimulation. - Subsensitivity to epinephrine following the administration of epinephrine and ephedrine to normal individuals, HS Nelson, JW Black, LB Branch, B Pfuetze, H Spaulding, R Summers, and D Wood, J Allergy Clin Immunol, May 1, 1975; 55(5): 299-309
Catabolic (Razor Ripped)
But this is not the biggest reason to avoid ephederine. My second conclusory line was based on more then blood glucose. It is better to read it from a trainer who trains competitors (a lot of women fitness competitors) and competes himself. My friend Razor Ripped says:
Was wondering what fat burners you could run without using AAS while on KETO type diet? Is clen the only option?
"The only one I'd recommend.
To date there isn't any OTC "supposed fat burners" on the market that can come close to comparing with clen.
Ephedrine will burn fat, but it's catabolic. So if you are interested in preserving muscle tissue you might want to stay away from that shit."
To date there isn't any OTC "supposed fat burners" on the market that can come close to comparing with clen.
Ephedrine will burn fat, but it's catabolic. So if you are interested in preserving muscle tissue you might want to stay away from that shit."
Do you strongly advise against the use of ephedra products?
"Yes!
Ephedrine= catabolic(Hits adrenal glands very hard and in turn releases tons of cortisol)"
Ephedrine= catabolic(Hits adrenal glands very hard and in turn releases tons of cortisol)"
[Why are you using it] I thought you didn't like ephedrine. Too hard on the adrenals? Maybe I misunderstood.
"It's only like 6 days, so it's no big deal. But you are correct, I think ephedrine is horrible. But for very short term use, like I'm doing, it won't effect anything really. I'm just using it for added energy to be honest. I'm on my last leg of prep and need something extra to push me through this."
I could post studies backing what Razor says but he'd just say "who needs to look at studies with a bunch of pussy-fuck retards to tell us what we already know."
His words not mine ...or actually my words put in his mouth not mine.Lorken; said:
I did. PP's product line, item x.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
Body composition response to exogenous GH while training in highly conditioned adults
STUDY, demonstrating positive body composition changes in highly trained athletes w/ 2g/kg per day protein intake & 8iu of GH 3x per week (EOD), w/ no other compounds.
NOTE: Protropin 1mg = 3iu or 1iu = 333mcg
EOD dose (3x per week) in the following study: 2.67mg or 8iu
Weekly total dose = 8mg or 24iu
Summary results:
STUDY, demonstrating positive body composition changes in highly trained athletes w/ 2g/kg per day protein intake & 8iu of GH 3x per week (EOD), w/ no other compounds.
NOTE: Protropin 1mg = 3iu or 1iu = 333mcg
EOD dose (3x per week) in the following study: 2.67mg or 8iu
Weekly total dose = 8mg or 24iu
Summary results:
FFW = fat free Weight
FW = fat Weight
FW = fat Weight
Body composition response to exogenous GH during training in highly conditioned adults, D. M. Crist, J Appl Physiol 65: 579-584, 1988
Intro:
The effects of biosynthetic methionyl-human growth hormone (met-hGH) on body composition and endogenous secretion of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) were studied in eight well-trained exercising adults between 22 and 33 yr of age for 6 weeks.
Dosing & Administration:
The met-hGH (experimental) treatment consisted of 8.0 mg (2 U/mg) per week of methGH (Protropin; Genentech, San Francisco, CA), which was divided into three doses (2.67 mg/dose) and delivered on alternate days (3 days/wk) in 0.5 ml of bacteriostatic diluent. Because of differences in the body weights of the subjects, the relative dose range varied between 0.03 and 0.05 mg/kg per injection. Injections were given between 0800 and 1500, and their delivery was rotated among four to six sites throughout the study period. Treatments were administered on a double-blind basis with neither the experimental subject nor the person administering the injections knowing which treatment was being delivered. The total weekly dose of met-hGH used in this study (8.0 mg) was considered supraphysiological, since the spontaneous release of human GH during a 24-h period is purportedly -0.68 mg (4.8 mg/wk) in men and 0.79 mg (5.5 mg/wk) in women (30), similar to amounts reported by others (6).
CONCLUSION
In the present study, we found that alternate-day treatment with met-hGH altered body composition in highly conditioned, exercising adults by increasing FFW (fat free weight), decreasing %fat, and increasing FFW (fat free weight)/FW (fat weight). These changes were significantly greater than those produced by exercise alone.
...
Moreover we found that supraphysiological amounts of met-hGH were sufficient to significantly elevate circulating concentrations of IGF-I in all our subjects, confirming that the changes in body composition were indeed due to real alterations produced in vivo by the hormone treatment.
Supression of endogenous GH
It has been reported previously that exogenous GH will suppress endogenous release of the hormone (19,23) and that this effect may be mediated in part by elevated levels of IGF-I (23). On a preliminary basis, we found that treatment for 6 wk with supraphysiological doses of met-hGH produced an impaired endogenous GH response to stimulation in some, but not all, of our subjects. This variable response may be related to the amount of hormone used in the study. Although a significant group elevation in IGF-I levels occurred during the met-hGH treatment, this response was still below the upper limit of normal (2.20 U/ml) for the study group. Thus it is plausible that the treatment dose of met-hGH used and the subsequent moderate increase in IGF-I levels led to feedback suppression of endogenous GH release in five of the seven subjects measured for this effect, whereas these physiological events were insufficient to produce this effect in two of the subjects.
Intense exercise increases sensitivity to GH??
...One possible explanation for the disparity between our findings and those of others (25, 26) is that the stress of long-term, intensive exercise training could induce alterations in vivo, which might potentiate tissue sensitivity to the physiological actions of GH (2). In any case, it is clear from our findings that supraphysiological doses of met-hGH increased circulating concentrations of IGF-I and increased FFW (fat free weight) and decreased FW (fat weight) in highly conditioned, exercising adults.
Soft-tissue Overgrowth?
There are two principal adverse reactions associated with excessive amounts of human GH, carbohydrate intolerance, and soft-tissue overgrowth. In the present study, we measured fasting blood glucose levels periodically throughout each treatment and found no real changes suggestive of a hyperglycemic response to methGH. Because soft-tissue overgrowth is associated with abnormally high levels of IGF-I, the normal responses observed suggest that the chance for soft-tissue overgrowth occurring in our subjects was minimal. However, it is unreasonable to conclude that use of met-hGH is safe as an adjunct to exercise in healthy adults until more subjects are studied over longer periods of time and with more stringent tests for detecting changes in glucose tolerance and soft-tissue overgrowth.
Diet used
To avoid compromising the dietary requirements for optimal tissue anabolism during the met-hGH treatment, our subjects ingested between 2.05 and 2.10 g/kg a day of protein and a minimum number of kilocalories to maintain body weight. The kilocaloric requirement removed the potential bias from a dietary-induced FW loss.
In Conclusion
We conclude that treatment with supraphysiological doses of met-hGH will significantly alter body composition in adults who are highly conditioned from years of exercise training. The magnitude of this effect, however, is dependent in part on the amount of hormone given per body weight of the individual rather than endogenous GH secretory status. Changes in body composition are directly related to met-hGH administration, but the manifestations of treatment may be mediated in part by increased production of IGF-I or other GH-dependent serum anabolic factors. Moreover, supraphysiological treatment with met-hGH in exercising adults may produce impairments in the stimulated release of endogenous GH in some individuals.
Intro:
The effects of biosynthetic methionyl-human growth hormone (met-hGH) on body composition and endogenous secretion of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) were studied in eight well-trained exercising adults between 22 and 33 yr of age for 6 weeks.
Dosing & Administration:
The met-hGH (experimental) treatment consisted of 8.0 mg (2 U/mg) per week of methGH (Protropin; Genentech, San Francisco, CA), which was divided into three doses (2.67 mg/dose) and delivered on alternate days (3 days/wk) in 0.5 ml of bacteriostatic diluent. Because of differences in the body weights of the subjects, the relative dose range varied between 0.03 and 0.05 mg/kg per injection. Injections were given between 0800 and 1500, and their delivery was rotated among four to six sites throughout the study period. Treatments were administered on a double-blind basis with neither the experimental subject nor the person administering the injections knowing which treatment was being delivered. The total weekly dose of met-hGH used in this study (8.0 mg) was considered supraphysiological, since the spontaneous release of human GH during a 24-h period is purportedly -0.68 mg (4.8 mg/wk) in men and 0.79 mg (5.5 mg/wk) in women (30), similar to amounts reported by others (6).
CONCLUSION
In the present study, we found that alternate-day treatment with met-hGH altered body composition in highly conditioned, exercising adults by increasing FFW (fat free weight), decreasing %fat, and increasing FFW (fat free weight)/FW (fat weight). These changes were significantly greater than those produced by exercise alone.
...
Moreover we found that supraphysiological amounts of met-hGH were sufficient to significantly elevate circulating concentrations of IGF-I in all our subjects, confirming that the changes in body composition were indeed due to real alterations produced in vivo by the hormone treatment.
Supression of endogenous GH
It has been reported previously that exogenous GH will suppress endogenous release of the hormone (19,23) and that this effect may be mediated in part by elevated levels of IGF-I (23). On a preliminary basis, we found that treatment for 6 wk with supraphysiological doses of met-hGH produced an impaired endogenous GH response to stimulation in some, but not all, of our subjects. This variable response may be related to the amount of hormone used in the study. Although a significant group elevation in IGF-I levels occurred during the met-hGH treatment, this response was still below the upper limit of normal (2.20 U/ml) for the study group. Thus it is plausible that the treatment dose of met-hGH used and the subsequent moderate increase in IGF-I levels led to feedback suppression of endogenous GH release in five of the seven subjects measured for this effect, whereas these physiological events were insufficient to produce this effect in two of the subjects.
Intense exercise increases sensitivity to GH??
...One possible explanation for the disparity between our findings and those of others (25, 26) is that the stress of long-term, intensive exercise training could induce alterations in vivo, which might potentiate tissue sensitivity to the physiological actions of GH (2). In any case, it is clear from our findings that supraphysiological doses of met-hGH increased circulating concentrations of IGF-I and increased FFW (fat free weight) and decreased FW (fat weight) in highly conditioned, exercising adults.
Soft-tissue Overgrowth?
There are two principal adverse reactions associated with excessive amounts of human GH, carbohydrate intolerance, and soft-tissue overgrowth. In the present study, we measured fasting blood glucose levels periodically throughout each treatment and found no real changes suggestive of a hyperglycemic response to methGH. Because soft-tissue overgrowth is associated with abnormally high levels of IGF-I, the normal responses observed suggest that the chance for soft-tissue overgrowth occurring in our subjects was minimal. However, it is unreasonable to conclude that use of met-hGH is safe as an adjunct to exercise in healthy adults until more subjects are studied over longer periods of time and with more stringent tests for detecting changes in glucose tolerance and soft-tissue overgrowth.
Diet used
To avoid compromising the dietary requirements for optimal tissue anabolism during the met-hGH treatment, our subjects ingested between 2.05 and 2.10 g/kg a day of protein and a minimum number of kilocalories to maintain body weight. The kilocaloric requirement removed the potential bias from a dietary-induced FW loss.
In Conclusion
We conclude that treatment with supraphysiological doses of met-hGH will significantly alter body composition in adults who are highly conditioned from years of exercise training. The magnitude of this effect, however, is dependent in part on the amount of hormone given per body weight of the individual rather than endogenous GH secretory status. Changes in body composition are directly related to met-hGH administration, but the manifestations of treatment may be mediated in part by increased production of IGF-I or other GH-dependent serum anabolic factors. Moreover, supraphysiological treatment with met-hGH in exercising adults may produce impairments in the stimulated release of endogenous GH in some individuals.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
IMPORTANT POINTS from the GH study above
The above study is one of those rare studies that is directly applicable to bodybuilding. One to add to your knowledge base.
Things to note:
What can you (and I too of course) learn from this, that goes against convention?
The above study is one of those rare studies that is directly applicable to bodybuilding. One to add to your knowledge base.
Things to note:
- GH w/o exogenous anabolics/androgens and w/o insulin increased muscle mass and lowered bodyfat % over 6 weeks.
- The participants were healthy young women & men.
- Participants were highly trained athletes who had no expectation of losing body weight nor gaining bodyweight because these parameters were stable due to their current conditioning.
- The dosing was every other day, only 3x per week.
- The daily dosing was 8iu for a weekly total of 24iu.
- This was sufficient to elevate IGF-1 levels but not to the point where they contributed to soft-tissue growth.
- No soft-tissue growth (such as gut) occurred.
- Protein intake was 2g/kg but diet was maintenance (body recomposition on a maintenance diet).
- IGF-1 was underscored as the primary suppressant of natural GH release and it was at a level where after 6 weeks five of the seven participants had suppressed natural GH release.
- the study's estimation of what the normal level of GH is in men & women is too high because the study was done in 1988 when assays were not sensitive enough to distinguish between GH ligands, GH-binding protein and GH fragments. (This has no effect on the results ...just a note not to rely on their stated estimate in that regard.)
- The participants were healthy young women & men.
- Participants were highly trained athletes who had no expectation of losing body weight nor gaining bodyweight because these parameters were stable due to their current conditioning.
- The dosing was every other day, only 3x per week.
- The daily dosing was 8iu for a weekly total of 24iu.
- This was sufficient to elevate IGF-1 levels but not to the point where they contributed to soft-tissue growth.
- No soft-tissue growth (such as gut) occurred.
- Protein intake was 2g/kg but diet was maintenance (body recomposition on a maintenance diet).
- IGF-1 was underscored as the primary suppressant of natural GH release and it was at a level where after 6 weeks five of the seven participants had suppressed natural GH release.
- the study's estimation of what the normal level of GH is in men & women is too high because the study was done in 1988 when assays were not sensitive enough to distinguish between GH ligands, GH-binding protein and GH fragments. (This has no effect on the results ...just a note not to rely on their stated estimate in that regard.)
What can you (and I too of course) learn from this, that goes against convention?
"GH is not anabolic w/o insulin" does not mean that you need exogenous insulin.
A sufficient amino acid pool is likely required.
You can both gain muscle & lose fat at a maintenance caloric intake w/ GH & training.
Six weeks is a sufficient amount of time to make positive changes.
You don't need beaucoup amounts of GH!!!!
A sufficient amino acid pool is likely required.
You can both gain muscle & lose fat at a maintenance caloric intake w/ GH & training.
Six weeks is a sufficient amount of time to make positive changes.
You don't need beaucoup amounts of GH!!!!
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
Thoughts on modGRF(1-29) + GHRP-6 +s ynthetic GH
So...
...in light of the above study and what we know about modified GRF(1-29) and GHRP-6 or GHRP-2 what do you think would happen if you did the following:
You'd probably exceed the above study's 6lb lean tissue gain over 6 weeks as well as lose bodyfat because you are using their GH dosing level plus the peptides.
What if you used half the GH postulated above... either 1iu w/ each modGRF(1-29)/GHRP-6 pulse or 2iu in the early pulse and none in the second pulse?
I bet you would do equally as well as the study.
...provided you were disciplined enough to eat at maintenance... 9 out of 10 hobbiests aren't.
So...
...in light of the above study and what we know about modified GRF(1-29) and GHRP-6 or GHRP-2 what do you think would happen if you did the following:
Say 100mcg of GRF(1-29) + 100mcg of GHRP-6 (or GHRP-2), wait 20 minutes and add 2iu of synthetic GH.
Do this twice per day.
Total synthetic GH for the week = 28iu
Total modGRF(1-29) for the week = 1.4mgs
Total GHRP-6 (or GHRP-2) for the week = 1.4mgs
Approximate monthly totals:
100iu of GH
less then 6 mgs of modGRF(1-29)
less then 6 mgs of GHRP-6 (GHRP-2)
Do this twice per day.
Total synthetic GH for the week = 28iu
Total modGRF(1-29) for the week = 1.4mgs
Total GHRP-6 (or GHRP-2) for the week = 1.4mgs
Approximate monthly totals:
100iu of GH
less then 6 mgs of modGRF(1-29)
less then 6 mgs of GHRP-6 (GHRP-2)
You'd probably exceed the above study's 6lb lean tissue gain over 6 weeks as well as lose bodyfat because you are using their GH dosing level plus the peptides.
What if you used half the GH postulated above... either 1iu w/ each modGRF(1-29)/GHRP-6 pulse or 2iu in the early pulse and none in the second pulse?
I bet you would do equally as well as the study.
...provided you were disciplined enough to eat at maintenance... 9 out of 10 hobbiests aren't.
cjc-1295/ghrp-6
First, thank you for all this information.
When combining CJC-1295 and GHRP-6, Can you pull both peptides into the same syringe and inject together in the same spot or use two separate syringes injected into two different spots?
If in the same syringe, does that change or affect the structure of the peptide?
First, thank you for all this information.
When combining CJC-1295 and GHRP-6, Can you pull both peptides into the same syringe and inject together in the same spot or use two separate syringes injected into two different spots?
If in the same syringe, does that change or affect the structure of the peptide?
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,109
quick question dat i have looked for the answere but cnt find it anywere.
I am currently running ghrp-6 at 100mcg 3 times per day while dieting 7 days a week. as of next week i finish dieting and will be running it 3 days on 1 day off at the same dosage.
i am considering adding in either igf at 60mcg pwo
or insulin either fast acting pwo or long acting in the am.
Will either of these cause any issues due to the ghrp-6?
much appreciated in advance
I am currently running ghrp-6 at 100mcg 3 times per day while dieting 7 days a week. as of next week i finish dieting and will be running it 3 days on 1 day off at the same dosage.
i am considering adding in either igf at 60mcg pwo
or insulin either fast acting pwo or long acting in the am.
Will either of these cause any issues due to the ghrp-6?
much appreciated in advance
Can a GC/MS or LC/MS test determine whether or not a substance said to be "CJC-1295 DAC" is in fact "CJC-1295 DAC", or another GHRH analog [ie "modified GRF(1-29")]?
If I decide to purchase "CJC-1295 DAC", I'm considering sending a sample to a lab for analysis, to determine if its legit or not. As of right now, I don't know of any sources that sell legit CJC-1295 DAC. I understand that there are inherent risks with using RC's, but if lab analysis can prove the legitimacy of a product, then I'm willing to pay for that peace of mind.
If CG/MS and LC/MS cannot determine whether or not its legit, are there any other tests that can?
If I decide to purchase "CJC-1295 DAC", I'm considering sending a sample to a lab for analysis, to determine if its legit or not. As of right now, I don't know of any sources that sell legit CJC-1295 DAC. I understand that there are inherent risks with using RC's, but if lab analysis can prove the legitimacy of a product, then I'm willing to pay for that peace of mind.
If CG/MS and LC/MS cannot determine whether or not its legit, are there any other tests that can?
Last edited:
bigger question is "why does it matter ?" The only plus to having the DAC is longer lifespan, but that doesn't change total weekly dosing, just changes it to the ability to pin 1050mcg once a week instead of 50mcg 3x a day, or 2.1mg once a week vs 100mcg 3x a day. Given that you'll likely be using it with a GHRP that you use 3x a day, I dont see the difference other than cost, and the modified ghrf wins that one. I suppose its possible that with the grf you may miss a natural pulse during the day perhaps, but i'm not sure how likely that is
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
You don't need to tell a lab what method to use.
All they need to have on file is:
Mass of CJC-1295, they can even calculate this from the structure you supply them.
Mass of GRF(1-29)
Mass of the Lysine Linker
With LC-MS they arrive at the mass of the peptide you give them.
Using HPLC-ESI-MC (HPLC 220nm, C18, linear gradient 0-30 minutes) and MALDI-MS an analysis was done by a lab on behalf of Chriswhat, last November.
It cost him $420 to discover that C's CJC-1295 was in fact GRF(1-29) at 80% purity w/ no contaminants.
They conclude "the analyzed sample contains the peptide GHRH(1-29) without the "Lysine Linker". No significant contaminants were detectable."
In fact he may have even had 80% purity GRF(1-29) w/o the 4 amino acid substitutions.
I remember looking at the molecular weights and thinking that it was GRF(1-29) w/ the amino acid substitutions but I'd need to take a fresh look with todays mind to be sure.
Last edited:
VTliftVT
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,602
P.S. I recently watched an episode of the American T.V. show House and the woman watching it with me said "That's how you use to be" as she pointed to the main character. So maybe that explains why I was more interested in CW's lab results then in CW's problems.
The fact that it bothers me today, hopefully means I have changed for the better.
Thanks for all you shared in that response.
On a lighter note, House is THE MAN
Smart asses rule!
Thanks for the info Dat!
Dat,
Thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions in such detail - it is phenomenal the amount of scientific and real world info you have. I am still reading the basic guide and associated threads that is why my reply took so long, do not think I am ungrateful for your help.
Can you confirm that my understanding is correct so far in that after reading your post:
"My protocol from the start never assumed that CJC-1295 was more beneficial if dosed bi-weekly and instead I always spoke of it in terms of it being just GHRH (in any form such as GRF(1-29) or modified GRF(1-29), etc,). I always wrote of it in combination with a GHRP (such as GHRP-6) because of the synergistic pulse...
As a result every place you see me discuss CJC-1295 dosing on a daily or thrice-daily protocol you can substitute modified GRF(1-29)."
I can use modified GRF (1-29) at 100mcg / day and a GHRP at 100mcg / day for slow, long term anti-aging & fat loss benefits. Is the best time to do this before bed on an empty stomach? I noticed that you include Mucuna standardized for 40% L-dopa before bed with peptides, is there a brand of you recommend that is standardized for the L-dopa content.
That ephedrine based ( I am assuming Ephedra herb as well) products are catabolic long term and raise insulin short term negating a GH pulse.
Can the catabolic effect of the cortisol released be off set by other cortisol suppressing compounds like phosphatidylserine or by using an anabolic agent that blocks the cortisol receptor? - just a thought
Thanks for all the great advice and information!
Dat,
Thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions in such detail - it is phenomenal the amount of scientific and real world info you have. I am still reading the basic guide and associated threads that is why my reply took so long, do not think I am ungrateful for your help.
Can you confirm that my understanding is correct so far in that after reading your post:
"My protocol from the start never assumed that CJC-1295 was more beneficial if dosed bi-weekly and instead I always spoke of it in terms of it being just GHRH (in any form such as GRF(1-29) or modified GRF(1-29), etc,). I always wrote of it in combination with a GHRP (such as GHRP-6) because of the synergistic pulse...
As a result every place you see me discuss CJC-1295 dosing on a daily or thrice-daily protocol you can substitute modified GRF(1-29)."
I can use modified GRF (1-29) at 100mcg / day and a GHRP at 100mcg / day for slow, long term anti-aging & fat loss benefits. Is the best time to do this before bed on an empty stomach? I noticed that you include Mucuna standardized for 40% L-dopa before bed with peptides, is there a brand of you recommend that is standardized for the L-dopa content.
That ephedrine based ( I am assuming Ephedra herb as well) products are catabolic long term and raise insulin short term negating a GH pulse.
Can the catabolic effect of the cortisol released be off set by other cortisol suppressing compounds like phosphatidylserine or by using an anabolic agent that blocks the cortisol receptor? - just a thought
Thanks for all the great advice and information!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
supreme; said:
Both the GHRHs and GHRPs go together and the synergistic GH release is a function of both peptides.
For instance I probably never mentioned it but GHRH has the effect of increasing GHS-Receptors on the somatotrophs (in plain language the receptors GHRP-6 will bind to on cells in the pituitary which will effect GH release). So they amplify each other.
Lets see pre-bed is the best time to use 100mcg of each. It will augment the natural night-time GH release, which in males comprises the vast majority of 24 hour GH-release and in females a significant portion.
In addition the best time to have a well formed pulse (one that communicates properly to tissue) is at night when recovery and repair take place.
In addition it increases certain very important sleep phases which are responsible for recovery and which diminish or become choppy as we age...
supreme; said:
Stay away from brands and just make formulas yourself with the raw ingredients. Thats what all the supplement companies do...plus they market the heck out of things and suck in the idiots. Which I define as anyone who spends a lot of money on things hyped on Anabolic Minds.
So buy the raw extract. It is cheaper & more effective. You can buy Mucuna pruriens, 40% L-Dopa from a place that sells herbal powder at BeyondaCentury for the price of less then $15. That lasts me a whole year.
Buy a scale to measure herbs...make sure it measures within 10mcgs . You can find good ones at a good price on ebay. I got an infraction on AnabolicMinds for telling someone that.
Which reminds me capping herbs is a pain unless you get a big capsule making unit. For the last couple of years only one place sold a 100 cap machine and they did so for almost $140. People were glad to even be able to acquire it.
Well I just picked one up for $39 at **broken link removed**
Unless I am making a blend I don't cap. I just measure out a dose and swallow the herb/extract.
supreme; said:
You might have it correct in your mind, but you do not have it correct with your written words.
Ephedrine does not negate a GH pulse.
What happens is it raises insulin which will hinder GH's lipolysis. But GH has many other effects such as engendering an increase in IGF-1...autocrine/parcrine effects, effects protein degradation & synthesis, etc.
In addition, while you won't optimize fatloss w/ GH in the presence of insulin you will skew nutrient partitioning away from adipose tissue. In other words insulin may not care where it disposes but GH can create a bit of a preference for liver & muscle. Get your calories just right and you'll feel these good effects.
Come in here and admit that your diet hasn't been the best and I will laugh if you cry that an increase in GH hasn't really helped you as much as you had anticipated.
I don't laugh at people at all... but after now interacting w/ a very substantial number of people I feel there is a pattern of many predefined behaviors... "GH may not 'uv done me wrong but it sure didn't do me right" is a pattern I still chuckle at when I see it.
supreme; said:
Patching holes in your patches just leads to more stitchwork. It is best not to wear out your sleeves in the first place. - just a thought
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
hilly2008; said:
Perhaps. My views on IGF-1 and its inhibitory effects on GH release have been expressed in this thread.
As far as concurrent admin of GHRP-6 and insulin, probably not.
As far as GHRP-6 administration followed by insulin, probably not.
As far as administering GHRP-6 at a time when exogenous insulin is peaking, it can be deadly. * I can elaborate if there is an interest in this potentiality
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,700
Both peptides can reside in the same syringe for periods of time, primarily because the pH will be similar for both.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,109
If you could elaborate pal it would be much appreciated as i would be shooting the insulin either with breakfast at 8am or pwo at 2.30ish.
Now i usually shoot my ghrp-6 at 7.30 and at 3.15 so i would be interested if you could see any problems
Also i dont seem to be able to find your comments on igf could you post the link or give me a simplistic breakdown of wether shooting igf pwo at 2.30 then shooting ghrp-6 45 minutes later would be an issue as i could mave the ghrp-6 to later if needed.
Also how long is ghrp-6 stable out of the fridge in an insulin pen as if i move my shots i would have to take it out with me so it would be out of the fridge for around 3 hours.
your help/info is much appreciated Dat
Similar threads
Members online
- BigIsBad
- Big Vin
- Hulk69
- traininsane11
- horrorpunk138
- mvdds
- BigBadDad
- DRXL
- Pheedno
- andregf
- run_fast
- Greatoak
- bukotitanico
- GroundFloor
- plex1500
- KrAven
- soltary
- Treadstone71
- Daswiz
- Massive G
- Anabolix8
- Mufasa123
- EFShadow
- bigthug
- pins
- Duke309
- pher143
- maxreps56
- Chembody
- Mia
- Knight9
- tommyguns2
- trapper john
- juiceball44
- Cdubw44
- grammo13
- jaybird151
- skydude1996
- MrSocal
- Tomgrass
- massephase
- Heath82
- uL7iMa
- ironmaster73
- maxrep24
- Shelby
- Poonami
- bigjim6775
- TedDansen
- MooseKnuckles
Forum statistics
