Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: JOHN MATRIX on January 12, 2006, 05:15:26 PM
-
why in the hell do pros use so much GH nowdays? i cant think of any benefits...nowdays pros heads and guts are attaining freaking sizes, their hands are like shovels, their skin is thicker and no ones really very detailed anymore, its expensive....
there are plenty of other drugs around, that have been around forever, that do the job fine while avoiding all these affects of GH abuse. the pros of past years seem to have been of better quality; less guts, less mutant heads,more shredded and more human looking.
what is the reason, the benefit, of increased GH usage for a pro bber?
-
good Question!
-
why in the hell do pros use so much GH nowdays? i cant think of any benefits...nowdays pros heads and guts are attaining freaking sizes, their hands are like shovels, their skin is thicker and no ones really very detailed anymore, its expensive....
there are plenty of other drugs around, that have been around forever, that do the job fine while avoiding all these affects of GH abuse. the pros of past years seem to have been of better quality; less guts, less mutant heads,more shredded and more human looking.
what is the reason, the benefit, of increased GH usage for a pro bber?
kinda like the opposite of anorexia but without the fat
-
i always wondered the same thing
-
kinda like the opposite of anorexia but without the fat
but does it even make their muscles bigger at all? i mean its not like GH is allowing pros to have 26 inch arms or something
-
The point of Gh--- 1)was to give dave plumbo a way of makeing a living
2)is a way to get rid of a whole lot of out of date HCG
3) and to give the chinese another thing to try and copy !!
-
;D
-
shawn, i was hoping you'd have an explaination!
-
That is my explaination.
Sometimes a Picture is worth a Thousand Words.
If this is what you want to look like, Enjoy! ;D
-
That is my explaination.
Sometimes a Picture is worth a Thousand Words.
If this is what you want to look like, Enjoy! ;D
:)
-
Sometimes a Picture is worth a Thousand Words.
can say that again
-
kinda funny i wondering the same thing the other day
-
just another tool in the bag for jaw gutler to increase jaw size....duhhrrrr
-
gh is a hormone that creates all kinds of tissue and has tremendous muscular benefits :and lets not forget its assistance in creation and rebuilding of stronger connective tissuse and organs. then again abuse has its not so attractive effects. check out the new england journal of medicine.
-
Normal doses of GH have amazing effects on the body. Supraphysiological dosages can cause the overgrowths and other sides that are being seen now. However if the protocol is started later in life after the growth plates throughout the entire body have closed the enlarged head/jaw etc are no longer possible. So in a way overdosing of GH can let you know if you were totally done growing or not :-X
But again, if it is a normal dose to bring levels back to optimum normal levels you should not see these side effects at all.
SG ::)
-
well said. :)
-
how does it make you more muscular? any bodypart now is not larger than it was before its widespread use, besides the wrong parts, there were huge arms, chest, backs, and legs before it became common, im just not seeing the advantage lots of GH has for pro bbers. in fact its ruined many good bbers. i dont think jaw gutler's head and midsection became enormous from test or dbols.
-
It basically helps you get in the type of condition you have to be in to be competitive these days.
I don't know if that made sense but I can't figure out a better way to put it. Maybe the growth fucked up my brain a little bit. Oh well.
-
It basically helps you get in the type of condition you have to be in to be competitive these days.
I don't know if that made sense but I can't figure out a better way to put it. Maybe the growth fucked up my brain a little bit. Oh well.
Yeah it's not anabolic really but gives you a certain "look", some if it due to water retention in the muscle. Expensive water retention. ;D
-
gh comes from dead people
-
how do you think Dorian made such a drastic improvement in, was it 93? GH with slin. he ushered it in. like ice cold milk and an oreo cookie. they forever go together.
-
how do you think Dorian made such a drastic improvement in, was it 93? GH with slin. he ushered it in. like ice cold milk and an oreo cookie. they forever go together.
Dorian ushering in the mass era in 93 had more to do with him understanding how to prepare for the olympia than any GH/slin. He said in 92 he was big like 93, but lost a ton of size dieting down for the O.
-
Gh hasnt come from dead people for many years. Good post
-
Most of the top pros are actually undoing any of the benefits of the GH they take (and also undoing some of the benefits of the hormones and AAS they take) by the way that they train.
I've had great success putting muscle on the steroid using bodybuilders who have come to me for training advice. I simply give them a modified version of the training guidelines I use myself (lifetime natural). I started out advising friends about diet and nutrition, but was soon horrified by how little benefit steroid users actually get from the drugs they utilise, and it's all down to training practices.
Similarly with growth hormone... it's used to ramp up the metabolism in order to allow bodybuilders to train more frequently and for longer periods. They need it, simply because they train too much.
Ronnie Coleman gains most of his mass while NOT training.
He overtrains for months coming up to the Olympia, using GH and various AAS... and competes at, say, 260 lbs ripped. Then soon after the Olympia he comes off the steroids, GH etc and stops training for three months or so, hovering around 240 lbs (10% bf) relatively clean. He then starts training and juicing again and balloons up to 320 lbs, then starts overtraining again... the cycle repeats itself, but after the next Olympia his relatively clean; no-juice, no-training bodyweight will be higher, say 245-250 lbs. It's the rest and time off from training that is allowing him to improve every year.
If these top pros maintained their drug regimen, dropping just the GH, and limited themselves to one weekly hour-long workout... most of them would be gaining 20-30 lbs of lean muscle a year. Hell, some of them could gain twenty pounds just by skipping training altogether for two months.
The Luke
-
wow "the luke" you sound like a genius
-
Shawn Ray is a really funny guy,a class act.I never new what an immature person you where till you started posting here.
-
No BroadStreet,
Not a genius, just someone who knows that most competitive bodybuilders take new, unusual (and dangerous) drugs simply out of a sense of paranoia. I've heard competitors say things like "I'd better use an an anti estrogen, 'cos i've heard other guys in the show are using it", I've even had a precontest bodybuilder ask me if his Vitamin B Complex tablets could be causing his bouts of heart arythmia. He was snorting two grams of cocaine every weekend...
Just for the record:
Steroids increase recovery ability by about 20% (50% for hyper responders), hard training naturals gain muscle on a about 4 hours or less of heavy training a week, with advanced trainers doing better with two or less hours a week. Therefore, an advanced, pro-level (steroid using) bodybuilder weighing 230-250 lbs should be training approximately THREE HOURS A WEEK.
He can continue to train relatively hard: too long and too often... but won't grow without the support of recovery enhancing drugs such as GH, insulin, HCG, T3 etc etc. Let's face it guys, most pros only gain a few pounds a year, and that's if they're lucky. Yates trained three or four times a week and quickly outgrew his skeleton.
Using GH to prop up a faulty training protocal is madness when you consider the side-effects involved: enlarged internal organs, facial deformities and enlarged extremities.
Just stay out of the gym guys... get a life outside of bodybuilding.
The Luke
-
Just for the record:
Steroids increase recovery ability by about 20% (50% for hyper responders), hard training naturals gain muscle on a about 4 hours or less of heavy training a week, with advanced trainers doing better with two or less hours a week. Therefore, an advanced, pro-level (steroid using) bodybuilder weighing 230-250 lbs should be training approximately THREE HOURS A WEEK.
The Luke
Where are you getting your info from? The size that you get from steroids have NOTHING to do with recovery ability. If that was true then we would all be huge whether we took sterodis or not. It would just take the natural guys longer to get the same size and we all know that this isn't the case. Your other theories on workout length make no sense.
-
If steroids didn't increase recovery ability (they do) why are they given to burns victims?
Why do people with low hormone (test) levels suffer immune suppression on lower physical workloads than people with normal hormone (test) levels?
Why do steroid studies show increased muscle recovery (increased protein synthesis, decreased proteolysis) in supplemented subjects?
Recovery is DIRECTLY related to muscle growth, if you don't think so "Disgusted" you may well be the only one who doesn't think so.
Natural bodybuilders don't reach the size of steroid users because a certain amount of circulating anabolic hormone is required to maintain inordinate quantities of muscle mass. Without steroids recovery times can stretch so long that atrophy sets in.
I'd go into why training times should be around 4 hours a week but I don't think you'd understand the concept of a dose/response relationship seeing as you think steroids "have NOTHING to do with recovery ability"... this statement is a non-sequitur, if it were true steroid users lifting heavier weights would take LONGER to recover seeing as the steroids had no effect on their recovery ability.
Just remeber guys, before steroids/GH/insulin/test etc, nobody was able to gain any weight training 10+ hours a week. Check out any of the old time physical culture magazines... everyone repeats the same mantra over and over again: train three/four times a week for an hour.
The Luke
-
Where are you getting your info from? The size that you get from steroids have NOTHING to do with recovery ability. If that was true then we would all be huge whether we took sterodis or not. It would just take the natural guys longer to get the same size and we all know that this isn't the case. Your other theories on workout length make no sense.
It makes sense. I just don't know if it's reality.
-
It makes sense. I just don't know if it's reality.
Read it again bro, it makes zero sense. Even if his figures about recovery ability are correct (there're not) they still have nothing to do with how big one gets from using steroids.
-
Luke. I tried what you said. I drove by my gym careful not to look to long then went to sleep for 72 hours by taking 4 bottleS of nyquil and I'm fucking 40lbs heavier all mass baby!
-
Guys,
I'm not making this up.
The New England Journal of Medicine ran a groundbreaking study on supraphysiological doses of testosterone a few years ago (2001??). It was a double blind study (the best kind) in which subjects were given...
A- placebo, with no training
B- placebo, with weight training
C- 600mg/week testosterone suspension, with no training
D- 600mg/week testosterone suspension, plus weight training
...the training program was pretty sensible, three 45 minute workouts per week. I believe the diets were pretty much standardised too. I think it ran for 4, 6 or 8 weeks, can't quite remember... but anyway it was a relatively long term study with lots of subjects.
The average results: (from memory, might not be exact)
A- placebo, no training negligible muscle change, gained small bit of fat
B- placebo, weights gained 6 lbs musle, lost small bit of fat
C- 600mg test, no training gained 7 lbs of muscle, lost small bit of fat
D- 600mg/week test, weights gained nearly 14 lbs of muscle, lost fair bit of fat
However, since then further studies using similarly large doses of testosterone (large by medical community standards not so large by bodybuilding standards) have found that the exercise response is related to the amount of exercise. They tested guys training once, twice, three times, four times, five times, six times and seven times a week with each session lasting an hour.
The biggest muscle gains happened with testosterone using subjects training three times a week.
Twice and four times a week caused similar growth responses.
Once a week did better than five times a week, because five times a week caused practically no muscle growth despite how popular gym folklore would have it.
Six and seven times a week actually caused the subjects to LOSE MUSCLE.
For non-supplemented subjects the results were less spectacular in terms of muscle gained and surprisingly different with respect to frequency.
Twice a week worked best.
Once a week or three times a week was the next best.
Four times a week produced some noticeable muscle, but the gains tapered off.
Five times a week had practically no effect at first, and later on in the study lead to a loss of muscle.
Six times a week caused the guys to lose muscle from the start, and many of them got sick.
Seven times a week left very few subjects standing at the end of the study.
Different studies with different levels of workout intensity (the above study worked the guys to failure) showed different results but the general trend held across the board.
So it's best to train approximately 2 hours a week, or 3 hours a week if using steroids. For the average trainee who wouldn't be working out as hard or intensely as was forced on these subjects under laboratory conditions the data would seem to indicate 3 hours a week (4 hours for steroid users).
Other studies showed that very advanced, muscular, long-time trainers took LONGER to recover: ie they couldn't train as much without a drop off in response. Really, really hard training bodybuilders did best on about an hour a week of training (two 30 minute sessions), steroid users could generally train 50% more often and make the same gains from workout to workout.
Does that clear things up guys?
Scary to think non-training steroid users can gain more muscle than a hard training weightlifter just by sitting on the sofa, eh? [see groups B and C above]
The Luke
-
Where are you getting your info from? The size that you get from steroids have NOTHING to do with recovery ability. If that was true then we would all be huge whether we took sterodis or not. It would just take the natural guys longer to get the same size and we all know that this isn't the case. Your other theories on workout length make no sense.
Overload-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy leads to activation of the P13K/Akt pathway principally by inducing muscle expression of IGF-1. Fracture of the basal lamina by eccentric strain created with resistance training allows release of IGF-1 and other mitogens/myogenic factors and access to the satellite cell population which differentiate and fuse with adjacent mature myofibers to increase cross sectional area (hypertropy). Additional transcriptional signalling factors include:
1. Hypertrophy mediators downstream of P13K and Akt: The Akt/mTOR pathway.
2. A second hypertrophy mediator downstream of P13K and Akt: GSK3beta
3. Inhibition of specific E3 Ubiquitin ligases
4. Akt inhibition of FOXO transcription factors BLOCKS upregulation of MuRF1 and importantly MAFbx (also called Atrogin-1)
5. mTOR activity from #1 (above) additively blocks upregulation of MuRF1 and MAFbx
Anabolic steroids amplify all of the above especially #1. GH indirectly activates #1 only by way of increased hepatic synthesis of IGF-1 (hence poor hypertrophy effects of GH even at megadoses) GH directly stimulates lipolysis (hence significant fat loss even at modest doses) over a relatively narrow range of exogenous dosing. GH gut = direct stimulation of organomegaly which is profound with higher doses/longer dosing duration.
Hope this helps
-
Finally, I've been advocating this less is more attitude to a couple of colleagues of mine, but they still won't believe it. I train 3 hours a week, eat clean and have some extra protein, I stay fairly lean (BF 8-10%). I train with a lot of intensity, to faillure, not to many sets and excercises per muscle group. Works like a charm, my colleagues don't/won't get it. They don't believe that the increased proteinsynthesis in the muscle can stretch up to ten days. To train a muscle once a week is enough (with the right intensity that is). Enlightenment is such a burden ;D ;D
-
Sounds like a HIT advocate here. And 260lbs. Where have you been. Coleman hovers around 280 these days
-
I recently (year ago) started back training after a four month lay-off. I decided to ease in with a simple abbreviated routine...
Smith incline
Dips
Close-grip benches
Bent-over rows
Close-grip pulldowns
Hammer curls
Lateral raises
Smith squats
Deadlifts
...nine exercises, one set each, takes about 25-30 mins, only ONCE a week.
After a month my arms had gone from 15'' back up to their previous all time high of 15.5'' (I'm only 5'4'' and natural). I was so excited I decided to continue training this way (30 mins a week), and after another 3 months my arms were up to 16''. My deadlift was up to 455 for 10! (from 375 for 10)
I still train this way! It's great! Though it doesn't do much for fat loss.
People ask me what I do for the rest of the week... I tell them I look in the mirror admiring my new muscle.
The Luke
PS-before people start in on me about my measurements, at 5'4'' a cold 16'' arm measurement is pretty big for a natural, although arms are a genetic weakness for me (my calves are 17.5'', thighs 28'', chest 45'' and neck 17.5'').
-
If steroids didn't increase recovery ability (they do) why are they given to burns victims?
Why do people with low hormone (test) levels suffer immune suppression on lower physical workloads than people with normal hormone (test) levels?
Why do steroid studies show increased muscle recovery (increased protein synthesis, decreased proteolysis) in supplemented subjects?
Recovery is DIRECTLY related to muscle growth, if you don't think so "Disgusted" you may well be the only one who doesn't think so.
Natural bodybuilders don't reach the size of steroid users because a certain amount of circulating anabolic hormone is required to maintain inordinate quantities of muscle mass. Without steroids recovery times can stretch so long that atrophy sets in.
I'd go into why training times should be around 4 hours a week but I don't think you'd understand the concept of a dose/response relationship seeing as you think steroids "have NOTHING to do with recovery ability"... this statement is a non-sequitur, if it were true steroid users lifting heavier weights would take LONGER to recover seeing as the steroids had no effect on their recovery ability.
Just remeber guys, before steroids/GH/insulin/test etc, nobody was able to gain any weight training 10+ hours a week. Check out any of the old time physical culture magazines... everyone repeats the same mantra over and over again: train three/four times a week for an hour.
The Luke
Yes, muscle growth is obviously related to recovery, but this IS NOT what you said before. You said steroids improve recovery ability and this is why they work and that is the part that I am disagreeing on.
You said "Without steroids recovery times can stretch so long that atrophy sets in."
This makes no sense. Your either in a state of recovery or your not. Atrophy would have to set in after recovery not during???
Also, they give burn victims steroids to promote tissue growth beyond what regular healing without them can acheive.
Bodybuilders are not burn victums. They take steroids to get bigger above and beyond what is possible naturally, not to recover faster. Who cares how fast it takes to recover as long as I'm bigger when I'm finished recovering.
You said "Why do steroid studies show increased muscle recovery (increased protein synthesis, decreased proteolysis) in supplemented subjects?"
Steroids studies do not show increased recovery, but they do show increased protein synthesis and decreased proteolysis. These are two different processes and you are confusing the two. Remeber, just because something heals faster does not mean it heals bigger.
BTW, I train 4X a week and my workouts last about 40 min. Been doing it for years.
-
I recently (year ago) started back training after a four month lay-off. I decided to ease in with a simple abbreviated routine...
Smith incline
Dips
Close-grip benches
Bent-over rows
Close-grip pulldowns
Hammer curls
Lateral raises
Smith squats
Deadlifts
...nine exercises, one set each, takes about 25-30 mins, only ONCE a week.
After a month my arms had gone from 15'' back up to their previous all time high of 15.5'' (I'm only 5'4'' and natural). I was so excited I decided to continue training this way (30 mins a week), and after another 3 months my arms were up to 16''. My deadlift was up to 455 for 10! (from 375 for 10)
I still train this way! It's great! Though it doesn't do much for fat loss.
People ask me what I do for the rest of the week... I tell them I look in the mirror admiring my new muscle.
The Luke
PS-before people start in on me about my measurements, at 5'4'' a cold 16'' arm measurement is pretty big for a natural, although arms are a genetic weakness for me (my calves are 17.5'', thighs 28'', chest 45'' and neck 17.5'').
replace the smith bullshit with some real full squat and front squat.
-
"Steroids studies do not show increased recovery, but they do show increased protein synthesis and decreased proteolysis. These are two different processes and you are confusing the two."
Eh, Disgusted, isn't recovery defined as the time it takes for the muscle to heal the damage done to it?
By definition, increasing protein synthesis speed this process.
By definition, decreasing proteolysis speeds this process.
If steroids speed up the time it takes for a muscle to recover, how do they have nothing to do with recovery?
Are you talking about growth? central nervous system recovery? I'm unsure how you think steroids don't allow trainers to workout more often when it's obvious that they do??
What I meant about recovery times and atrophy setting in is that someone who overworks a muscle (negatives to failure for example) and really damages it could conceivably still be recovering up to 80 days later (MRI studies have shown this) if you workout once every 80 days you loose the hormonal benefits, the metabolism slows back down and atrophy in a systematic sense can set in.
If you could explain your argument and/or what exactly you find wrong with mine maybe we could expplain it to each other.
My point remains that most pros are using/need to use GH because they are simply overtrained, they are too big and too strong to recover in time but resort to metabolism altering drugs with nasty side-effects rather than simply train less.
GMCtrk,
I need the Smith squats man. Squats and deads back to back is a killer, it's not a question of IF you're going to puke/passout but whether you can control your breathing enough to puke/passout AFTERWARDS.
Also I've got short legs (short everything) and can actually free squat more than I can Smith squat. The Smiths allow me to save my lower back for the deadlifts to come.
I know what you mean, my gym is full of guys who quarter squat on the Smith and consider themselves hardcore.
The Luke
-
Luke with 16" arms & once a week HIT training setting Coleman straight on his routine. Very good.
Let's get back to basics. GH is excellent if you want to look gross.. :P
-
"Steroids studies do not show increased recovery, but they do show increased protein synthesis and decreased proteolysis. These are two different processes and you are confusing the two."
Eh, Disgusted, isn't recovery defined as the time it takes for the muscle to heal the damage done to it? Yes it is.
By definition, increasing protein synthesis speed this process. Really? Why?
By definition, decreasing proteolysis speeds this process. Why again?
If steroids speed up the time it takes for a muscle to recover, how do they have nothing to do with recovery? Again, recovery it not responsible for growth. I should clarify this and add that the kind of recovery that we are talking about it not responsible for the extreme size gains that steroids give you.
Are you talking about growth? central nervous system recovery? I'm unsure how you think steroids don't allow trainers to workout more often when it's obvious that they do?? Steroid users do not have to workout longer and many don't. Anyone can workout more often. I know a ton of guys who are natural and do a ton of sets. Some look good, some don't. Sounds like you have been reading too much of Mentzer's BS.
What I meant about recovery times and atrophy setting in is that someone who overworks a muscle (negatives to failure for example) and really damages it could conceivably still be recovering up to 80 days later (MRI studies have shown this) if you workout once every 80 days you loose the hormonal benefits, the metabolism slows back down and atrophy in a systematic sense can set in. Too much mumbo jumbo Luke. Stop trying to turn lifting weights into a science experiment.
If you could explain your argument and/or what exactly you find wrong with mine maybe we could expplain it to each other.
My point remains that most pros are using/need to use GH because they are simply overtrained, they are too big and too strong to recover in time but resort to metabolism altering drugs with nasty side-effects rather than simply train less. No pros need to use GH. GH is a waste of $ unless your looking to use it for longevity purposes.
-
Eh, Disgusted...
Noticed the only part of my previous post you didn't write a cryptic comment on was:
"If you could explain your argument and/or what exactly you find wrong with mine maybe we could explain it to each other."
So consider that re-stated.
Don't know why you can't grasp the concept of increased recover causing growth...
Two identical twins, both train the same way, one takes steroids... one does not. Each guy gains the same amount of muscle from each workout, except the steroid user recovers 50% faster and is ready to train again 50% faster, he does 50% more workouts. At the end of one year, natural identical twin is X amount of muscle heavier, steroid using twin is X and a half amount of muscle heavier having effectively accomplished 18 months training in that same year.
Can someone else chime in on this guys? Does anyone else understand Disgusteds argument? If so could they (or Disgusted) explain it to me? I really thought it was a given that steroids increase recovery ability.
Hey pumpster,
I said I got them up to 16'' after a few months of once a week. They are NOW a tape-stretching 16.125''!!
Don't knock a 16 and one eighth cold arm measurement, that 16.125'' is 16.75'' pumped up, that's 17'' with a slack tape... or 18'' with the tape the pros use. And a pro's claim of 18'' pumped is 19'' cold in their Flex Star Profile.
Now that I think of it I'm not so far off Lee Priest's 21'' bazooka's (we're the same height).
The Luke
-
I'm with Disgusted on this one.
Luke, steroid using bb'ers actually get away with training less frequently. Once a week per bodypart is almost the norm nowadays. It used to be that everyone trained each bodypart twice. Drugs elevate protein synthesis so there isn't as much need to keep it elevated with frequent training (protein synthesis is elevated approx. 48 hours in a natural).
Steroids do not simply enhance recovery.
-
The Luke...
...Shut up. You were a bit interesting at first. Now you're just boring. You're also making the others boring too.
Enough is enouth.
-
Mr luke show me some Amazing natural pics from yourself
-
I'm with Disgusted on this one.
Luke, steroid using bb'ers actually get away with training less frequently. Once a week per bodypart is almost the norm nowadays. It used to be that everyone trained each bodypart twice. Drugs elevate protein synthesis so there isn't as much need to keep it elevated with frequent training (protein synthesis is elevated approx. 48 hours in a natural).
Steroids do not simply enhance recovery.
It has always been understood that steroids speed up recovery time. If this wasn't so, bodybuilders would never be able to complete these marathon workouts, week after week, without falling apart.
-
Good point Van_Bilderass,
Everyone started training their bodyparts only once a week when they found out that's all Dorian was doing (around '92/'93). But in terms of training sessions and HOURS A WEEK in the gym most pros are grossly overdoing it. It's because of this that the pros feel the need to use GH and insulin, they work out too much and then stop growing... so they increase their dose, or add GH/insulin to their stack and grow a little bit more because of the slight drop in their required recovery time. Whereas they would be better off training less.
I understand that steroids do not simply boost recovery, they have myriad effects of which that is only one. The point I'm trying to get across is that guys like Mike Morris (read his interview in the thread) was using grams and grams of anabolics each week... but felt he needed growth hormone too. A lot of this has to do with the constant excessive metabolic stress these guys put on themselves... using 2 or 3 grams of anabolics a week mike was still only able to gain 5-10 lbs of quality muscle each year... at even two grams of anabolics a week you could gain 10 lbs in a year without even working out. That's more male hormone than a 9' 800 lb sasquatch would have.
I'd love to see one of these big pros make a concerted effort on a very abbreviated routine, say a 1 hour whole-body workout once every two weeks, for even six months. The scientific data seems to indicate that would be the most productive. The GH is mostly a crutch to allow these guys live in the gym... I dare say some of them only take it because it's called GROWTH hormone.
In the '90's the late Ray Mentzer (Mike's brother) was training hard for a Masters Olympia comeback. He apparently used steroids, but supposedly wasn't megadosing (1 gram a week) or using GH. I've read that he was training HIT style only twice a week (onlyme maybe you can confirm/debunk this) and was squatting 900 for reps at 260 lbs (6% bf).
If that's true why do lower tier pros need up to 4 grams a week, a plethora of other drugs, GH and insulin along with 10-20 hours in the gym?
The Luke
-
I recently (year ago) started back training after a four month lay-off. I decided to ease in with a simple abbreviated routine...
Smith incline
Dips
Close-grip benches
Bent-over rows
Close-grip pulldowns
Hammer curls
Lateral raises
Smith squats
Deadlifts
...nine exercises, one set each, takes about 25-30 mins, only ONCE a week.
After a month my arms had gone from 15'' back up to their previous all time high of 15.5'' (I'm only 5'4'' and natural). I was so excited I decided to continue training this way (30 mins a week), and after another 3 months my arms were up to 16''. My deadlift was up to 455 for 10! (from 375 for 10)
I still train this way! It's great! Though it doesn't do much for fat loss.
People ask me what I do for the rest of the week... I tell them I look in the mirror admiring my new muscle.
The Luke
PS-before people start in on me about my measurements, at 5'4'' a cold 16'' arm measurement is pretty big for a natural, although arms are a genetic weakness for me (my calves are 17.5'', thighs 28'', chest 45'' and neck 17.5'').
Where's sarcasm when you need him to make fun of a guy with 15" arms giving out advice?
-
Eh, Disgusted...
Noticed the only part of my previous post you didn't write a cryptic comment on was:
"If you could explain your argument and/or what exactly you find wrong with mine maybe we could explain it to each other."
So consider that re-stated.
Don't know why you can't grasp the concept of increased recover causing growth...
Two identical twins, both train the same way, one takes steroids... one does not. Each guy gains the same amount of muscle from each workout, No they don't since one is on steroids except the steroid user recovers 50% faster and is ready to train again 50% faster, Here you go again getting the growth and recovery confused he does 50% more workouts. At the end of one year, natural identical twin is X amount of muscle heavier, steroid using twin is X and a half amount of muscle heavier having effectively accomplished 18 months training in that same year. So are you saying tht if the other twin lifted for 18 months he would be as big as his twin without steroids? Lifting weights is not an exact science Luke, way too many variables. [/b]
Can someone else chime in on this guys? Does anyone else understand Disgusteds argument? If so could they (or Disgusted) explain it to me? I really thought it was a given that steroids increase recovery ability.
Luke your example is flawed. Each twin does not gain the same amount of muscle from each workout. (Actually, no one "gains" muscle from working out, they destroy it.) The first twin gains more muscle because he is on steroids.
The Luke
-
Luke show me some pics
-
Meltdown!!!
They're 16.125''!! I worked damn hard for that 1.125''.
They might only be big-looking because I'm a midget, but I'm a strong midget.
A strong midget, who's too "off-season" at the moment to post any pics....
eh....
My dog ate my camera...
Eh... What other excuse can I use?....
Eh... I'm natural!...
Yeah! That's it... I'm natural... natural and a hardgainer....
I'm owned-eh-I-mean small boned....
What else can I say...
What's that other excuse that 240 uses... I'm that too...
The Luke
-
I just ate dinner and by chewing alone I gaine 15lbs of mass
-
Actually Gh in its self is quite a useless substance, the synergistic effect of Gh and insulin create the substance known as Igf 1 , it is this hormone that is responsable for ongoing cellular growth with in the body. Gh has only has a half life of around 1 hr with in the system, and it is with in this time the conversion to Igf1 should take place,Igf1 then has a half life with in the body of up to 3 days in which time it promotes the new and re growth of celluable tissue.
The added enhanced environment of Positive nitrogen retention caused by the intake of Anabolics enhance and add the celluable growth effect whilst the introduction of a elevated testosterone count aids the cells new and old ability to achieve Maxim muscle hypertrophy.
All this activity in turn increases the body's metabolic rates thus increasing the thermogenic status of the individual which in turn aids the body in using its fat stores as a energy source !!!
Problem is Igf1 is not stressed(trained)muscle specific and causes celluable growth at all levels, one of the problems that can occur is that fibrous tissue can be strained and damaged through the rapid increases in strength caused by the the larger and new plentiful muscle growth.
Those who have used Gh and found little or no result either got sold bogus Gh or did not have there insulin equation right, also the environment they were creating in their body's might have not been anabolic and nutrient dense enough to support the increased cellular growth.
Gh is useless really but the synergistic effect of all the above is the best growth combination one can get !!!
-
Actually Gh in its self is quite a useless substance, the synergistic effect of Gh and insulin create the substance known as Igf 1 , it is this hormone that is responsable for ongoing cellular growth with in the body. Gh has only has a half life of around 1 hr with in the system, and it is with in this time the conversion to Igf1 should take place,Igf1 then has a half life with in the body of up to 3 days in which time it promotes the new and re growth of celluable tissue.
The added enhanced environment of Positive nitrogen retention caused by the intake of Anabolics enhance and add the celluable growth effect whilst the introduction of a elevated testosterone count aids the cells new and old ability to achieve Maxim muscle hypertrophy.
All this activity in turn increases the body's metabolic rates thus increasing the thermogenic status of the individual which in turn aids the body in using its fat stores as a energy source !!!
Problem is Igf1 is not stressed(trained)muscle specific and causes celluable growth at all levels, one of the problems that can occur is that fibrous tissue can be strained and damaged through the rapid increases in strength caused by the the larger and new plentiful muscle growth.
Those who have used Gh and found little or no result either got sold bogus Gh or did not have there insulin equation right, also the environment they were creating in their body's might have not been anabolic and nutrient dense enough to support the increased cellular growth.
Gh is useless really but the synergistic effect of all the above is the best growth combination one can get !!!
Hepatically derived igf-1 is quite useless no matter what. It's just not very anabolic whether stackd with insulin or not.
-
As a man made substance it has its critics , but IGF1 formed with in the body via the synergistic effect of Gh (a amino acid structured hormone) and the hormone insulin is very effective a creating new cellular growth "with in a anabolic environment" !!!
Thats how it works !!
-
why in the hell do pros use so much GH nowdays? i cant think of any benefits...nowdays pros heads and guts are attaining freaking sizes, their hands are like shovels, their skin is thicker and no ones really very detailed anymore, its expensive....
there are plenty of other drugs around, that have been around forever, that do the job fine while avoiding all these affects of GH abuse. the pros of past years seem to have been of better quality; less guts, less mutant heads,more shredded and more human looking.
what is the reason, the benefit, of increased GH usage for a pro bber?
I agree, bro: GH is worthless. There is nothing that GH does that sauce doesen't. Dipping yourself, in sauce, will make you grow far more than GH ever can. GH's anabolic action is comparable to nandrolone or methenolone. It is a weak anabolic. Sure, it mobilizes fat stores more than sauce, but there are drugs betten than GH for that purpose, with less grave side effects. GH:severe side-effects, mediocre efficiency for muscle growth and extremely expensive. No, thanks.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Normal doses of GH have amazing effects on the body. Supraphysiological dosages can cause the overgrowths and other sides that are being seen now. However if the protocol is started later in life after the growth plates throughout the entire body have closed the enlarged head/jaw etc are no longer possible.
You are [partially] wrong.
An increase in the width/circumference of the cranium or mandible is an example of appositional bone growth.
Appositional bone growth does not impact the length of a bone, but rather its width, exterior circumference, and the circumference of the interior canal as well.
The bone growth you mention is endochondral bone growth. The epiphyseal plates fuse at the age of 25.
Not to mention endochondral bone growth has little/no bearing on a bone's circumference. So essentially, an enlarged head and jaw is a possibility at any age (assuming the subject is adequately nourished and supplements with growth hormone).
-
You are [partially] wrong.
An increase in the width/circumference of the cranium or mandible is an example of appositional bone growth.
Appositional bone growth does not impact the length of a bone, but rather its width, exterior circumference, and the circumference of the interior canal as well.
The bone growth you mention is endochondral bone growth. The epiphyseal plates fuse at the age of 25.
Not to mention endochondral bone growth has little/no bearing on a bone's circumference. So essentially, an enlarged head and jaw is a possibility at any age (assuming the subject is adequately nourished and supplements with growth hormone).
translation:
obviously increased skull size at later ages is possible, LOOK AT JAY CUTLER
-
what will jay shrink to when he goes off
-
gh comes from dead people
gh is sometimes extracted from the pitutitary gland of cadavors but now can an is synthetically made...it's a speciific amino acid sequince (over 100 specificaly chained)
-
gh is sometimes extracted from the pitutitary gland of cadavors but now can an is synthetically made...it's a speciific amino acid sequince (over 100 specificaly chained)
Yes, it is made with genetically engineered bacteria. Once more:extremely expensive.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Read it again bro, it makes zero sense. Even if his figures about recovery ability are correct (there're not) they still have nothing to do with how big one gets from using steroids.
Better retention of Nitrogen which is apart of the repair & growth of a muscle.
-
Better retention of Nitrogen which is apart of the repair & growth of a muscle.
Better retention of nitrogen (from steroids) is part of growth but not repair. (in the aspect of what we are talking about) The muscles will still repair themselves at subpar nitrogen retenion and it still has nothing to do with recovery. Let me clarify this one more time. Just because a muscle recovers faster does NOT mean that it will grow bigger than before.
-
Its made up of a amino acid profile with 151 or 152 chained amino's(brand dependent,151 the exact copy of the human form), and it is as cheap as chips to make to be honest.(they don't use human extracted GH any more!!)
I know that a 10 iu bottle (Taiwanese and Chinese made) cost around $3-5 us dollars to make,thats to the end product and out to the wholesaler, admittedly this is bulk manufacturing costs, but most Gh is made in bulk on a industrial level any how !!!
And interestedly enough IGF1 doesn't cost much more in manufacture costs either!!!, but it is not bulk manufactured at a industrial level !!! usually only independent laboratory made.
-
That is my explaination.
Sometimes a Picture is worth a Thousand Words.
If this is what you want to look like, Enjoy! ;D
Shawn,
First off, had the pleasure of meeting you at Levrone's gym several years ago in Maryland. Enjoyed your seminar. Secondly, ever once give in to using Gh during your career? Your Physique never reflected it's use but I was just curious.
-
Better retention of nitrogen (from steroids) is part of growth but not repair. (in the aspect of what we are talking about) The muscles will still repair themselves at subpar nitrogen retenion and it still has nothing to do with recovery. Let me clarify this one more time. Just because a muscle recovers faster does NOT mean that it will grow bigger than before.
But for quite a few individuals, it does. Muscle growth also depends on your genetics & the amount (along w/quality) of food you're consuming. Certain steroids do aide in a limited amount of repair--Nadrolones. I speak from my experience.
-
But for quite a few individuals, it does. Muscle growth also depends on your genetics & the amount (along w/quality) of food you're consuming. Certain steroids do aide in a limited amount of repair--Nadrolones. I speak from my experience.
Your making no sense. Muscle growth is not dependent on genetics. Maybe you mean muscle shape and hormone levels are dependent on genetics as far as how big a muscle gets and what it will look like in a bigger state?? Anyone who is alive is able to grow and repair muscle. BTW, I know quiet a few steroid takers who eat like shit and are pretty big. I have no idea as to what you are reffering to when you metion nandralone. Your misinterpreting your experiences.
-
Your making no sense. Muscle growth is not dependent on genetics. Maybe you mean muscle shape and hormone levels are dependent on genetics as far as how big a muscle gets and what it will look like in a bigger state?? Anyone who is alive is able to grow and repair muscle. BTW, I know quiet a few steroid takers who eat like shit and are pretty big. I have no idea as to what you are reffering to when you metion nandralone. Your misinterpreting your experiences.
Not at all. And if you don't know what nandrolones are, then you definitely have little/no experience with anabolic steriod use. And genetics do play a role in muscle size as well, and yeah you're right that some guys eat like shit and grow. But how is their muscle quality? Also, how many meals out of the day that they eat are shit?? Also, with the shitty meals--do they still have good protein in them??
-
Actually you guys don't have a clue what you are on about , GH is a amazing growth product , as long as the correct environment is established for it to work properly-------- ahh I think that is why every one uses it and the physiques have just go better and better over the past decade !!!
I have clients whom use GH and have gained amazing amounts of lean mass(10-20 kgs lean mass gains) --- but like i said the correct enviroment is essential !!!!
-
Actually you guys don't have a clue what you are on about , GH is a amazing growth product , as long as the correct environment is established for it to work properly-------- ahh I think that is why every one uses it and the physiques have just go better and better over the past decade !!!
I have clients whom use GH and have gained amazing amounts of lean mass(10-20 kgs lean mass gains) --- but like i said the correct enviroment is essential !!!!
No argument at all with ur points.
-
Not at all. And if you don't know what nandrolones are, then you definitely have little/no experience with anabolic steriod use. And genetics do play a role in muscle size as well, and yeah you're right that some guys eat like shit and grow. But how is their muscle quality? Also, how many meals out of the day that they eat are shit?? Also, with the shitty meals--do they still have good protein in them??
If your going to say I'm wrong then at least explain yourself enough to try and convince me.
-
Actually you guys don't have a clue what you are on about , GH is a amazing growth product , as long as the correct environment is established for it to work properly-------- ahh I think that is why every one uses it and the physiques have just go better and better over the past decade !!!
I have clients whom use GH and have gained amazing amounts of lean mass(10-20 kgs lean mass gains) --- but like i said the correct enviroment is essential !!!!
by environment do you mean diet or are other drugs necessary in combination? I'm not looking for advice on how to use them, I'm just interested from reading this post
-
Actually you guys don't have a clue what you are on about , GH is a amazing growth product , as long as the correct environment is established for it to work properly-------- ahh I think that is why every one uses it and the physiques have just go better and better over the past decade !!!
I have clients whom use GH and have gained amazing amounts of lean mass(10-20 kgs lean mass gains) --- but like i said the correct enviroment is essential !!!!
So what's the correct environment? Taking steroids has to be one of them right? So you have had guys gain 20-40 pounds by adding GH to their cycles? Did they take insulin too? Sorry but not convinced that GH can add that much muscle. You can substitute the word creatine for GH and make those claims as long as other drugs are used.
-
So what's the correct environment? Taking steroids has to be one of them right? So you have had guys gain 20-40 pounds by adding GH to their cycles? Did they take insulin too? Sorry but not convinced that GH can add that much muscle. You can substitute the word creatine for GH and make those claims as long as other drugs are used.
Definitely, Disgusted. For one last fucking time:GH is worthless, at least for sheer mass building.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
The correct environment is making sure you get optimal conversion to IGF1 once the Gh is taken(for it is this hormone that is responsable for all the new tissue growth(not the GH), this synergistic effect is best done with the use of a rapid insulin, although good effects can be achieved with manipulation of ones blood sugar levels via food intake(but most opt for the more easy direct approach)
Once this equation has been satisfied you then need to supply the body optimally with nutrients(calories)to enable the IGF1 with enough ammo to do its job probably so to speak.
For tissue growth you need a positive nitrogen state and this can be enhanced dramatical via the use of a anabolic steroid, this coupled with adequate nutrients and above normal blood plasma levels of IGF1 floating around creates a magnificent growing environment !!!
So for those whom say Gh is useless , they are partly right in this observation , but truth be known put the above equation together and it results in fantastic growth capability's, far greater ability than if only part of the above was implemented !!!!
-
The correct environment is making sure you get optimal conversion to IGF1 once the Gh is taken(for it is this hormone that is responsable for all the new tissue growth(not the GH), this synergistic effect is best done with the use of a rapid insulin, although good effects can be achieved with manipulation of ones blood sugar levels via food intake(but most opt for the more easy direct approach)
Once this equation has been satisfied you then need to supply the body optimally with nutrients(calories)to enable the IGF1 with enough ammo to do its job probably so to speak.
For tissue growth you need a positive nitrogen state and this can be enhanced dramatical via the use of a anabolic steroid, this coupled with adequate nutrients and above normal blood plasma levels of IGF1 floating around creates a magnificent growing environment !!!
So for those whom say Gh is useless , they are partly right in this observation , but truth be known put the above equation together and it results in fantastic growth capability's, far greater ability than if only part of the above was implemented !!!!
THen why not just take IGF and a bunch of celltech? High doses of insluin will give you bodyweight gains of that caiber but I do not think that this kind of weight for weights sake looks good. Insulin is destroying that look of bodybuilding. Like I said, GH does not give muscle gains of 20-40 pounds. Can you show us any before and after pics of guys adding this kind of weight from taking GH?
-
A few reason why IGF1 is not taken (well actually it is to those who have access to it )
1) It is made via Independent labs for specific medicinal purposes only and is not mass produced the likes of GH.
2) Because of the above it is usually let go into the market(black or legit)at overly exaggerated pricing
3) Igf1 is very delicate in its structure and is easily damaged via transportation
4) and because of all the above most opt for the easier option of more redidly available Gh
And No I cant show before and afters as they are Private clientele and there is such a thing client protocol, you will just have to take my word for it (if you want ,you don't have to)
I do agree Insulin is a very dangerous hormone to be using and i would rather people not use it , but if they choose to it is not my position to judge but to offer advice as best i can to make it save for them and to make sure it is all done in a responsable and rational way !!!
-
I know a few guys who take the triple cake of HGH,IGF,Insulin and one thing i have noticed is these guys are not just getting bigger but there matobolisms have changed they are leaner and stronger but also there calorie intake has gone through the roof.
24iu of HGH a day may cause increased muscle hypotherapy but the main thing i notice is there calorie intake has almost doubled and they keep that lean mass.Though i do know personally of one bodybuilder who used heavy amounts of growth hormone and it enlarged his heart causing very serious complications he was over 300 pounds and is now a shadow of his former self weighingsomewhere under 200 pounds.Playing Russian Roullete. ???
-
on average conditioning is far worse now than in the days before its rampant misuse.
-
I don’t know much about steroids and supplements but I will say this…
I had a muscle buddy in LA I used to visit a lot when I lived in San Francisco. When I first met him he was on a lot of stuff including HGH. He was thick and heavily muscled! His kitchen cabinet looked like a pharmacy. I know he was on HGH among other things because he told me. There came a time when he had a conflict with his insurance company and they cut off any payments for his HGH. He had to fight with them for nearly a year to get them to pay for it. He was a lawyer, and eventually he won his fight: the insurance company resumed payments for all his HGH from his local pharmacy. All his drugs came directly from the pharmacy. Again, I know this because he told me and I went with him to the pharmacy any number of times when he had to pick up his next stash.
He could easily afford the other supplements he took (Deca, Test, etc.) but he wanted/needed the insurance company to pay for his HGH; apparently it was very expensive.
I visited LA a lot and stayed at his place whenever I was down there. I went to the gym with him often and even administered some of his injections (please no jokes). All of this is to say that I saw his body many many times at different periods in his various cycles. I could immediately tell when he was off HGH and I could tell when he resumed it. It made a big difference in his muscle mass. Without it he was still obviously a serious bodybuilder, but when he was on it, his body jumped up to a much higher--and instantly recognizable--level.
-
I don’t know much about steroids and supplements but I will say this…
I had a muscle buddy in LA I used to visit a lot when I lived in San Francisco. When I first met him he was on a lot of stuff including HGH. He was thick and heavily muscled! His kitchen cabinet looked like a pharmacy. I know he was on HGH among other things because he told me. There came a time when he had a conflict with his insurance company and they cut off any payments for his HGH. He had to fight with them for nearly a year to get them to pay for it. He was a lawyer, and eventually he won his fight: the insurance company resumed payments for all his HGH from his local pharmacy. All his drugs came directly from the pharmacy. Again, I know this because he told me and I went with him to the pharmacy any number of times when he had to pick up his next stash.
He could easily afford the other supplements he took (Deca, Test, etc.) but he wanted/needed the insurance company to pay for his HGH; apparently it was very expensive.
I visited LA a lot and stayed at his place whenever I was down there. I could immediately tell when he was off HGH and I could tell when he resumed it. It made a big difference in his muscle mass. Without it he was still obviously a serious bodybuilder, but when he was on it, his body jumped up to a much higher--and instantly recognizable--level.
On what grounds did he presuade the insurance company to pay for his HGH?
-
On what grounds did he presuade the insurance company to pay for his HGH?
I dunno. But he did and the HGH made a very noticeable difference in his physique. He also had huge meaty hands & fingers. I didn't think much of it at the time, but now I am fairly certain that HGH was the cause of his oversized digits. It was hot if you like that sort of thing. :-\
-
I don’t know much about steroids and supplements but I will say this…
I had a muscle buddy in LA I used to visit a lot when I lived in San Francisco. When I first met him he was on a lot of stuff including HGH. He was thick and heavily muscled! His kitchen cabinet looked like a pharmacy. I know he was on HGH among other things because he told me. There came a time when he had a conflict with his insurance company and they cut off any payments for his HGH. He had to fight with them for nearly a year to get them to pay for it. He was a lawyer, and eventually he won his fight: the insurance company resumed payments for all his HGH from his local pharmacy. All his drugs came directly from the pharmacy. Again, I know this because he told me and I went with him to the pharmacy any number of times when he had to pick up his next stash.
He could easily afford the other supplements he took (Deca, Test, etc.) but he wanted/needed the insurance company to pay for his HGH; apparently it was very expensive.
I visited LA a lot and stayed at his place whenever I was down there. I went to the gym with him often and even administered some of his injections (please no jokes). All of this is to say that I saw his body many many times at different periods in his various cycles. I could immediately tell when he was off HGH and I could tell when he resumed it. It made a big difference in his muscle mass. Without it he was still obviously a serious bodybuilder, but when he was on it, his body jumped up to a much higher--and instantly recognizable--level.
"Muscle buddy"...I don't think I want to read the rest of this story. :-\ >:(
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
"Muscle buddy"...I don't think I want to read the rest of this story. :-\ >:(
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Yet you did, didn’t you? SUCKMYMUSCLE, you are far too predictable. :D
-
HIV = insurance pays for the GH. Right, baygbm?
-
HIV = insurance pays for the GH. Right, baygbm?
That would be my conclusion. It's not exactly rocket science. :-\ Though from what I hear, not all doctors and insurance companies agree on the need for HGH as part of a regimen. Many insurance companies will not pay for it depending on the condition of the patient and what the physician does or does not say. Apparently, the recreational/cosmetic use and abuse (private sales?) of HGH by many ostensibly “sick” patients that “need” HGH have led to a big clamp down by insurance companies. I never did find out how much it costs but it was enough that my friend fought for months with his company to make them foot the bill, and I am certain he would not have won that fight if he did not have so many legal resources at his command.
-
Exactly why is the stuff so expensive?
-
Its called ---- PROFITTERIN------ which is illegal in day to day necessity consumable items !!???
-
Yet you did, didn’t you? SUCKMYMUSCLE, you are far too predictable. :D
Nope. I stopped right there. Prove me wrong, girl. ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
A few reason why IGF1 is not taken (well actually it is to those who have access to it )
1) It is made via Independent labs for specific medicinal purposes only and is not mass produced the likes of GH.
2) Because of the above it is usually let go into the market(black or legit)at overly exaggerated pricing
3) Igf1 is very delicate in its structure and is easily damaged via transportation
4) and because of all the above most opt for the easier option of more redidly available Gh
And No I cant show before and afters as they are Private clientele and there is such a thing client protocol, you will just have to take my word for it (if you want ,you don't have to)
I do agree Insulin is a very dangerous hormone to be using and i would rather people not use it , but if they choose to it is not my position to judge but to offer advice as best i can to make it save for them and to make sure it is all done in a responsable and rational way !!!
I hear ya, but I have known guys to take IGF (real) and not gain anywhere near 20-40 pounds. I have seen guys gains close to that using insulin alone but again it is not pretty weight. Kind of a bulky bloated look.
So your saying that in order for GH to convert to IGF you have to take insulin and or take in a certain amount of simple carbs like dextrose correct? I wasn't aware that a high level of insulin was needed for GH conversion to IGF. Are there medical studies to prove this or is this something that you are postulating based on experience.
-
There is indeed scientific evidence that insulin is needed for the release of IGF-1 ... the following abstracts are from:
PH Sonksen, Hormones and sport; Insulin, growth hormone and sport, Journal of endocrinology, 170; 13-25 (2001)
-
There is indeed scientific evidence that insulin is needed for the release of IGF-1 ... the following abstracts are from:
PH Sonksen, Hormones and sport; Insulin, growth hormone and sport, Journal of endocrinology, 170; 13-25 (2001)
Hardcore said that insulin is needed to be present to "convert" exogenis GH to IGF. (I do not see this as being true) The study that you post only says that insulin is essential for the anabolic action of GH. It also uses anorexia and diabetics as examples . This is a far cry from healthy bodybuilders. Thanks for the info but in this case we are talking about insulins need to be present to "convert" exogenis GH to IGF. To different things.
-
hGH is not converted to IGF-1. hGH (in the presence of insulin) stimulates the production/release of IGF-1
-
This figure is from the same source. While it isn't directly related to the subject at hands, it can still be of interest.
-
Years later, is this thread relevant?
-
That is my explaination.
Sometimes a Picture is worth a Thousand Words.
If this is what you want to look like, Enjoy! ;D
Or this:
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x263/timeamajorova/palumbolove.jpg)
-
why in the hell do pros use so much GH nowdays? i cant think of any benefits...nowdays pros heads and guts are attaining freaking sizes, their hands are like shovels, their skin is thicker and no ones really very detailed anymore, its expensive....
there are plenty of other drugs around, that have been around forever, that do the job fine while avoiding all these affects of GH abuse. the pros of past years seem to have been of better quality; less guts, less mutant heads,more shredded and more human looking.
what is the reason, the benefit, of increased GH usage for a pro bber?
if you dont know then..... you just dont know :-\
-
pretty cool thread actually, if ya read it all the way through