Short hgh cycle

[ChestRockwell]

@heenok

No doubt about it.  And when adding insulin to a GH+AAS cycle, you do increase hypertrophy potential as well.  But hypertrophy takes time and there very may well be a "ceiling effect" as far as how much tissue growth can occur over a given period of time.

So, perhaps folks who are stuck on this "must use GH for six months" kick may be getting stuck on semantics?  Just making up numbers here but let's say the maximum amount of hypertrophy one can accrue in a week on AAS only is 100%.  Adding GH puts that number to 105% and adding GH/insulin puts it at 120%.

So some may look at that and say, "hey you are only getting an extra five percent by using GH so that is a waste of money if you are only using it for a few weeks".  Conversely, others may look at it the other way and say "holy shit, an extra five percent is awesome!".  But it isn't like you wake up one day, six months after starting GH, and unlock an achievement or something.  Such an arbitrary timeframe as well...

[2whitelights]

I think you also have to consider personal response to hgh. I feel like that can vary quite a bit, which is why some people think that it takes longer to see the effects, because they simply don't get the same level of effects as others.

When i started using hgh i noticed the effects almost immediately. Within the first month i was actually sort of blown away. I was hooked every since that first month. It's almost as if i could "feel" that my igf1 was through the roof. I've been on AAS only for a few years prior to that so i'm very well aware of the sensations of my body and how i normally react and feel. It was an overall good feeling. At 26 days i tested my igf1 at almost 500 on 3ius a day. I was happy with that number considering the dose.

I know of many people who run pharma grade and simply can't seem to get their IGF1 very high. Now i dont know exactly if the IGF1 is a true dictator of whether your going to get good results but it's something to consider.

I think some people just simply don't respond as well to hgh based on their anecdotal evidence as well as reviewing bloodwork.

I could be wrong though. I would love to hear from Chestrockwell. I've read some of your articles and many of your posts. Would like to hear your opinion on whether this may be the case.

[ChestRockwell]

I could be wrong though. I would love to hear from Chestrockwell. I've read some of your articles and many of your posts. Would like to hear your opinion on whether this may be the case.

You certainly make good points, particular with regard to response.  As with all exogenous hormones, there are going to be a wide range of responses.  Why is this?  Well, there are numerous reasons and it could be related to the actual ligand-based receptor, efficiency of nuclear translocation (polymorphisms), or even differences in gene transcription (signaling pathway efficiency).

Then there are a whole heap of non-hormonal variables such as the quality of the product being used, the protocol used, how one's lifestyle variables are controlled (diet/training/sleep/etc).  This is why folks who follow me identify pretty quickly that I use a lot of "it depends" and rarely provide "one size fits all" anecdotes.

I know of many people who run pharma grade and simply can't seem to get their IGF1 very high. Now i dont know exactly if the IGF1 is a true dictator of whether your going to get good results but it's something to consider.

To a degree, yes.  My current belief is that elevation of endocrine IGF-1 is inevitable, but trying to "limit" it could be a key factor.  One of the reasons I believe this is that there is some pretty compelling evidence that chronically elevated endocrine IGF-1 levels may be a negative feedback regulator upon autocrine IGF-1 (which is more important to hypertrophy machinery).  

One way to do this is by designing your GH protocol in such a way that it mimics endogenous pharmacokinetics, as best as we can (obviously serum GH will remain elevated much longer when using rHGH).

[Bulgarian_enforcer]

Growing bigger and being leaner.. i also bought t4.. currently taking 100mcg ED.. been reading it is kind of a must to use it along with hgh.. you have any opinion pn that

I dont fuck with thyroid hormones too risky for my goals. Have no experience so, you decide for yourself.

 Imo if your idea is to be big a lean stay on gh and test all year. and blast with tren (u decide) var 50 mg - 100MG ED +increased test (e,g cruise 200-400 mg EW, blast 800 mg -1g EW) +increased hgh (4-5 IUED cruise, 8-10 IU ED blast). ofc AI will have to be increased during blasts.

Diet should be big on protein and calories.

[Bulgarian_enforcer]

You certainly make good points, particular with regard to response.  As with all exogenous hormones, there are going to be a wide range of responses.  Why is this?  Well, there are numerous reasons and it could be related to the actual ligand-based receptor, efficiency of nuclear translocation (polymorphisms), or even differences in gene transcription (signaling pathway efficiency).

Then there are a whole heap of non-hormonal variables such as the quality of the product being used, the protocol used, how one's lifestyle variables are controlled (diet/training/sleep/etc).  This is why folks who follow me identify pretty quickly that I use a lot of "it depends" and rarely provide "one size fits all" anecdotes.

To a degree, yes.  My current belief is that elevation of endocrine IGF-1 is inevitable, but trying to "limit" it could be a key factor.  One of the reasons I believe this is that there is some pretty compelling evidence that chronically elevated endocrine IGF-1 levels may be a negative feedback regulator upon autocrine IGF-1 (which is more important to hypertrophy machinery).  

One way to do this is by designing your GH protocol in such a way that it mimics endogenous pharmacokinetics, as best as we can (obviously serum GH will remain elevated much longer when using rHGH).

Gimick alert. In studies with dwarf children around 8% get immune to gh and dont get elevated igf

most do, again small% are hyper responsive.

[Bulgarian_enforcer]

I still cannot get behind the sentiment that there is "no point in running it below six months".  Given two bodybuilders, all things being equal, give one GH for a month and they will be progressively ahead of the bodybuilder who was not using GH.

This is true in both fat loss and hypertrophy phases.

GH is always beneficial, but it is not worth it if you cannot run it most of the time a year.

thats my 2 cents.

[ChestRockwell]

Gimick alert. In studies with dwarf children around 8% get immune to gh and dont get elevated igf

most do, again small% are hyper responsive.

I don't know what "gimmick alert" means?

But back to your "point", I don't see how this is in any way relevant to what we are discussing.  We are on a bodybuilding board so how or why would those with endocrine disorders be relevant to any of the points being discussed?  I also believe you may be referring to Laron Syndrome dwarfs, and they are GH insensitive due to an actual mutation in the growth hormone receptor.  So again, not relevant to an otherwise healthy individual...

GH is always beneficial, but it is not worth it if you cannot run it most of the time a year.

thats my 2 cents.

Okay, this is encouraging, you've switched from a blanket statement earlier in the thread of "GH only shines at the six month mark" to "GH is always beneficial".

It sounds as if you are more concerned with the financial aspects (e.g. "not worth it") than the actual metabolic effects. 

[krematoria]

HGH is usefull for fatloss or bodyfat?

[2whitelights]

You certainly make good points, particular with regard to response.  As with all exogenous hormones, there are going to be a wide range of responses.  Why is this?  Well, there are numerous reasons and it could be related to the actual ligand-based receptor, efficiency of nuclear translocation (polymorphisms), or even differences in gene transcription (signaling pathway efficiency).

Then there are a whole heap of non-hormonal variables such as the quality of the product being used, the protocol used, how one's lifestyle variables are controlled (diet/training/sleep/etc).  This is why folks who follow me identify pretty quickly that I use a lot of "it depends" and rarely provide "one size fits all" anecdotes.

To a degree, yes.  My current belief is that elevation of endocrine IGF-1 is inevitable, but trying to "limit" it could be a key factor.  One of the reasons I believe this is that there is some pretty compelling evidence that chronically elevated endocrine IGF-1 levels may be a negative feedback regulator upon autocrine IGF-1 (which is more important to hypertrophy machinery).  

One way to do this is by designing your GH protocol in such a way that it mimics endogenous pharmacokinetics, as best as we can (obviously serum GH will remain elevated much longer when using rHGH).

Thank you for your response. I'm interested in this. If it's not too difficult would you mind explaining how to go about doing this?

[Bulgarian_enforcer]

I don't know what "gimmick alert" means?

But back to your "point", I don't see how this is in any way relevant to what we are discussing.  We are on a bodybuilding board so how or why would those with endocrine disorders be relevant to any of the points being discussed?  I also believe you may be referring to Laron Syndrome dwarfs, and they are GH insensitive due to an actual mutation in the growth hormone receptor.  So again, not relevant to an otherwise healthy individual...

Okay, this is encouraging, you've switched from a blanket statement earlier in the thread of "GH only shines at the six month mark" to "GH is always beneficial".

It sounds as if you are more concerned with the financial aspects (e.g. "not worth it") than the actual metabolic effects. 

lol trolling hard brother? you are writing a lot of bull u know?

[ChestRockwell]

Thank you for your response. I'm interested in this. If it's not too difficult would you mind explaining how to go about doing this?

I go into this in a LOT of depth on my "GH and Hypertrophy" article.  I'm not sure if posting links is allowed so just Google it if you want the deep-dive.

High level, to elicit maximal hypertrophy-related effects from GH you likely want to "micro-dose" your GH multiple times per day, allowing serum GH to peak and trough before peaking again.  Depending on your daily GH allotment, there are numerous ways this can be done.

lol trolling hard brother? you are writing a lot of bull u know?

No, I actually don't know?  You have not demonstrated even a basic understanding of growth hormone so far in this thread, however if you spot any "bull" in any of my posts please be clear what you are referring to so we can address it.

[Bulgarian_enforcer]

I go into this in a LOT of depth on my "GH and Hypertrophy" article.  I'm not sure if posting links is allowed so just Google it if you want the deep-dive.

High level, to elicit maximal hypertrophy-related effects from GH you likely want to "micro-dose" your GH multiple times per day, allowing serum GH to peak and trough before peaking again.  Depending on your daily GH allotment, there are numerous ways this can be done.

No, I actually don't know?  You have not demonstrated even a basic understanding of growth hormone so far in this thread, however if you spot any "bull" in any of my posts please be clear what you are referring to so we can address it.

OK, so if i administer 4.5 IU ED, how is the optimal way to do it. 10 times 0.45 IU thats kind of bull shit. I have tried pinning more time and i dont see shit difference.

[ChestRockwell]

OK, so if i administer 4.5 IU ED, how is the optimal way to do it. 10 times 0.45 IU thats kind of bull shit. I have tried pinning more time and i dont see shit difference.

Yes, injecting ten times does not make for a fun day, I agree with you on that.  What we do know is that in vitro experiments demonstrate maximal autocrine IGF-1 mRNA expression in skeletal muscle tissue can be elicited with small amounts of GH (around 1IU).  

There are many factors beyond IGF-1 mRNA expression when discussing maximizing hypertrophy, however this can be a good benchmark.  Ideally, using 1-2IUs in each muscle (assuming you are injecting into a muscle group with a pair such as arms, delts, pecs, etc) 2-3 times per day can be a very effective protocol.  These injections should be spaced out at least 4-6 hours, if possible.

As you said, we are talking about minor differences here and trying to compare hypertrophy response to differing protocols can often be splitting hairs.  So, when I mention these types of protocols, these are certainly not required, however they can be ideal for those looking to absolutely maximize response.

[2whitelights]

Chest, Do you recommend sub Q or IM? I think i even recall you mentioning IV but we'll leave that off the table. Thanks.

[ChestRockwell]

Chest, Do you recommend sub Q or IM? I think i even recall you mentioning IV but we'll leave that off the table. Thanks.

They each have a slightly differing pharmacokinetic profile, and so they each have their own potential use cases.

Because subcutaneous has a slightly elongated elevation in serum GH, I tend to recommend this for those who are using GH as part of a fat loss protocol.  The elevations in serum GH drive lipolysis while in a fasted state...

Intramuscular injections may be preferred by those using GH as part of a growth protocol, and we've been discussing some of the reasons in this very thread.

Although IV would most closely mimic endogenous pharmacokinetics, this is not something I personally recommend.

[Disco187]

I believe dave on rx said its about 6 month lag time to see results from gh. This kinda makes doing 12 wk gh cycles getting ready for contest preps pointless.... I don't agree or disagree

[ChestRockwell]

I believe dave on rx said its about 6 month lag time to see results from gh. This kinda makes doing 12 wk gh cycles getting ready for contest preps pointless.... I don't agree or disagree

As we've been discussing, this arbitrary "lag time" has no actual support.  And, we also must take into account why someone might benefit from telling people this...

[lilhawk1]

As we've been discussing, this arbitrary "lag time" has no actual support.  And, we also must take into account why someone might benefit from telling people this...

I agree.  I feel GH works immediately, and the effects can be felt within days.  Increased fullness, pump, etc.  As far as someone benefiting from telling people this, my guess is they are selling bunk GH, so they tell everyone it takes months to notice it, which is false.

[Tovarishch_Smert]

They each have a slightly differing pharmacokinetic profile, and so they each have their own potential use cases.

Please point us in the direction of the PK profiles and use cases you refer to. I’m sure we ALL would enjoy seeing how the LADME schemes differ... I presume mostly in absorption and metabolism, but anyway should be interesting....

[ChestRockwell]

Please point us in the direction of the PK profiles and use cases you refer to. I’m sure we ALL would enjoy seeing how the LADME schemes differ... I presume mostly in absorption and metabolism, but anyway should be interesting....

Snarky much?

I have this referenced (with actual screenshots) in my published GH and Fat Loss article.  Again, I don't know if posting links is allowed so just Google it.

[Tovarishch_Smert]

Snarky much?

I have this referenced (with actual screenshots) in my published GH and Fat Loss article.  Again, I don't know if posting links is allowed so just Google it.

Not trying to be snide at all... I was serious! Most interesting to me personally would be the PK profiles for Hgh administered IM. All the PK profiles I’ve seen have been only based on SubQ, so I am interested to see how the two profiles differ. I’ve never administered my hgh IM... always SubQ as I am of the belief the benefits are more systemic that way....

Anyway, will do on the Google search.

[ChestRockwell]

Anyway, will do on the Google search.

Let me know if you have any trouble finding it and I can PM you the link.  One of the cooler studies I referenced actually shows the difference in high/low dose GH administration via SC and IM routes (in both men and women too!)...

[Tovarishch_Smert]

Let me know if you have any trouble finding it and I can PM you the link.  One of the cooler studies I referenced actually shows the difference in high/low dose GH administration via SC and IM routes (in both men and women too!)...

Just read one of your articles on thinksteroids.com... good stuff! I found some PK profiles years ago when i was deciding which HGH to take - It was between Genotropin and Norditropin at the time. Everything was SC that I read, so I chose Norditropin via SC... I just like the PK profile a bit better... Genotropin seemed to spike faster, but drop off faster as well, while both seemed to maintain elevated IGF-1 over time. Now im runnnig Serostim, which is nice and I am positive is pharma-legit, but its nothing compared to pharma Norditropin.

Anyway, good reads... thanks!

[ChestRockwell]

Just read one of your articles on thinksteroids.com... good stuff! I found some PK profiles years ago when i was deciding which HGH to take - It was between Genotropin and Norditropin at the time. Everything was SC that I read, so I chose Norditropin via SC... I just like the PK profile a bit better... Genotropin seemed to spike faster, but drop off faster as well, while both seemed to maintain elevated IGF-1 over time. Now im runnnig Serostim, which is nice and I am positive is pharma-legit, but its nothing compared to pharma Norditropin.

Anyway, good reads... thanks!

You bet, I'm glad you enjoyed it!  I don't think I've ever actually come across a study that compared pharmacokinetic data on different (traditional) rHGH brands.  That would be interesting considering many claim they experience vastly different responses from brand to brand (not something I have noticed myself).

I've always suspected it may have something to do with folks' response to either:
a) fillers and/or preservatives in the vial
b) recombinant technology used (there are essentially two "families" of FDA approved rHGH)

[Bulgarian_enforcer]

all i see is 2 guys with 50 post jerking each other off...