posted Fri, 11/11/2011 - 09:38
2937
Breaking up gh dose
ad
- A guy on here said if u break up 5iu in multiple shots, it will be like taking 10 ius.
Is that true?
Also everyone has opinions not facts as far as injecting via muscle or subQ
What benefits if injected in muscle and subq?
Any real difference as far as muscle gain/ fat loss with either method?
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
In the medical community, anti aging dr's etc, I believe it's all subq. My dr. is subq.
Has anyone heard of IV or IM from a dr?
tread-mI read all of the page here and its a lot of good info. My benefits from using many different ways subq dont seem to make much difference. I have not tried IM although open to it, not open to IV given we can never be totaly sure of our hgh purity unless it is pharma and I feel even though it is going in your body, IV may give you the greatest chance of toxicicty to foreign fillers...just an opinion. As to time and frequency, my theory is this. For men our pulse naturally is at night, so popping too close to bed time could suppress any natty you may get. Our values are peaked in the morning so that seems less effective. My shot is mid day to late afternoon and one seems as effective to me as 2. I do not buy into the 5 on 2 off theory either. It seems to have originated from people trying to save money before the prices came down some with all the competition and then people tried to build science around that to justify the 2 days off.
agree...the 2 days off bs is to help dealers market the Pharm growth to make it look more affordable
double post
I know you've done your homework Tread and like your addition to HGH related discussions. So from what you've said I would infer that you take your daily dose once per day subq, right?
So could you let me know your thoughts on this quote from a study on pulsatile dosing in rats:
"Pulsatile treatment with GH in a dose of 1.5 U/kg·day induced a 3- to 5-fold increase in the levels of IGF-I mRNA in skeletal muscle and rib growth plates. In contrast, continuous infusion with GH was much less effective in these tissues."
Study : http://endo.endojournals.org/content/123/6/2605.abstract?ijkey=9eaa9083e...
tread-mYeah I would buy into that probably, just hard to say cuz I'm not a rat even though grrrl said so! Continuous anything seems non productive and begs for a shutdown or negative feed back so that seems perfectly logical.
Continuous infusion closely relates to the way the hormone is released when administered subq.
tread-mYeah we might seperate there for two reasons. If we're talking 30 iu's of bac water even if still just running 3.7 mg lets say. Then you have enough volume to begin the argument. Of course the other reason is in the result department. I have good results as do many others and the best example I can think of is a guy who does a similar protocol to mine except he does not build, or do much of anything for that matter..he has been on 2 iu's a day for just over 2 years, no gear use and this guy looks 10 years younger! Now I will be fair and admit it is Eli Lilly 5mg... A little something I like to call the hgh that all others hope to grow up and be some day...lol. point is I think there are many benefits no matter how its done in terms of time of injection or frequency but its just tweaking it now. Kinda like you're building a nice car and as we tweak we just make the car nicer and nicer. I do think there is huge argument to be made with IV which I wont do and good argument in IM, I have heard of many even running it in with their gear even though they say oil and water dont mix..lol. i'm way open minded though but I tend to work in numbers over time as to results. I wont be the first guy to go IM but as the science comes in and the results come in with the numbers game then I dont mind switching if its there. I always pause as the new science comes in because somebody thought asbestos was a great fuckin idea in the beginning! Lawyers still love asbestos to this day... : / not fair I know to compare this to asbestos because I do think theres validity to the statements you make.
Sorry Tread, but I don't get what you mean with your first point? Where are the 30ius of bac water coming from? I reconstitute a 10iu vial of kig with 1ml of bac water, which means 1 tenth of 1ml=1iu. If you wanted, you could use 0.5ml which would mean 1 twentieth of 1ml=1iu. Its easy to measure on the slin pins I'm using. I'm not sure what you meant though.
As for your second point, You say your present protocol is yeilding good results. But good results compared to what? Have you tried any other protocols? I'm sure you have, but the one I mentioned has scientific results from various studies to prove that pulsing via IV (or IM if you prefer) yields better results than any other protocol possible. The reason is probably because it mimics the bodys own GH secretion.
Like you Tread, I would like to think I am open minded. I am open to discussion if you have anything else to add.
tread-mNo I hear you, I'm open to all. The fact that we all do what we do means we opened our minds in a big big way to sokething outside the traitional means or traditional thinking. Lets face it, most of the experience doctors have are working with sick people. Does not give them a lot of oppurtunity to work with well people and research. In fact, can you blame them, theres no money in it for a general prac! Lol. This is the reason for the hrt boom. A few pioneers IMO are seeing that not only is there a market for wellness and health, it may have been the biggest market all along given that you have well people begging to stay that way and maybe you can begin to peel off some of the sick people from the GP's wbo would prefer to get well as opposed to maintaining a degree of sick that is tolerable. At the endof the day we have to keep an open mind. Eeven though we have come so far from the days of Arnold we are really just beginning to tap the real science with gear and now we have some scientists willing to dedicate their lives to endocrinology as it relates to youthfullness because there is huge bucks in it. As to my first point. I was trying to say in a higher vloume of mix one might consider the hgh as continuous given the bodies uptake would take lonjger. I know your point and agree to some degree but I think the small volume used such as 5 iu's even subq is a pretty rapid uptake. And I may have the word misinterpreted for this discussion as well so theres always that! Lol
Sorry Tread, but you lost me again on your first point. The part I understood is about 5iu's being released pretty rapidly via subq injection. I would have to disagree with this statement. Subq injections are used puposely for slow release of peptides/hormones by medical pratitioners all over the world. One example would be insulin for diabetics. The difference in release between direct to blood vs subq could 3-4 times as long.
tread-mI belieive insulin just needs to get in the body period does it not? I thinks its uptake is the same via the muscle or subq, could be wrong there though. No and I get it, its just a very small volume seems would uptake quicker than a large volume in terms of a small spill will clean up quicker than a large spill. Yes I know of the subq being a slower uptake in general I just don buy quite as deep into to difference to a serious degree of measure when compared to IV which would be the obvious difference in degree. I know a site injection for an injury with a peptide is going to have a better chance of healing the specific injury but thats more about geography. The subq is repeorted to help heal as well via the loop change and pulse along with change in axis also promoting higher uptake of test. These combinations will increase what is known as "kille cells". Killer cells are specific white cells designed to be the leaders in healing. Anabolic steroids do a similar thiing althoughb when abused the balance can be negative. But to my point, I dont know there would be a real measurable difference other than possible site benefit. I have read a lot of science on hgh that showed IM was a better choice in term of healing and specific site benefit and then a lot of science that site injection subq will benefit a specific area in burning fat. Then I turn right back around and can easily find a study that showed there was difference in body fat change when compared to specific sites or places of injection, that the overall bf reduction was the same in the group with site specific protocols when compared to the group having all stomach subq injectiions. So this is why I love these types of discussion, It opend doors to the new and the better ways because often the science tends to find what it set out to find. Meaning 99% of the science was set up to bhe a specific study to find a specific outcome and thats not really science at all. Sciience is studying something having no expectation of outcome at all therefore you are not even subconsciously setting the tets up to prove a point. There are big ego's in the science world so very often, even though they wont admit it, these people set out to prove their own beliefs or disprove anothers beliefs and that is agenda which leads to propoganda as opposed to actual truth in science. I do pretty much agree with the things you discuss I just need more science to change what I know is working now. I do acually have something to compare it too though, I have myself pre-hgh to compare it too but even that can be improved upon I'm sure which is where your points come in. I will absolutely look deeper into the IM as time goes and might even pump some in with my IM shots because I dont mind experimenting with myself in a fairly safe way. IV thoughb is just not a place I would personally go without serious science from mutliple communities and even then it would have to be pharma from a US source such as ELI....which is the next issue, I cant afford ELI...lol. always nice points, I actually had some discussion about this some time back after another posted on it, or may have been you then as well. By the way, are you hitting it IV?
Nice post Tread. Yes, I am injecting IV. I have only been doing this a few months, but right away I noticed the difference. I could actually feel the difference. I read in a study not long ago, which proved that IV injection had threefold the potency of subq injection of the same amount. It definately feels that way. I dose 1-2iu(IV)several times per day EOD. Somtimes I will inject IM if I have trouble getting into a vein or the needle has been blunted.
I will post the study I was referring to if I find it.
tread-mThanks brother, I'd appreciate it...
AnonIn my research I concluded my nat GH is around 1am. I SQ my 2iu's at noon between my 10:00am and 2:00pm meals. It is working for me.
Yes, that's fine. But how do you know that if you administered it differently and split the dose that you would not reap more rewards. Have you tried any other methods? What are you comparing it to? And you say it is 'working for you'. In what ways have you noticed it working? Please elaborate.
I could help you... but you are such a little prick, I think I'll just let you run around with your head up your ass until you find your answers from someone else.
Thanks lol
Ok .. Since you weren't rude with your response i'll give you a little insight... There is actually plenty of evidence out there which not only suggests but scientifically proves through experiments on rats and GH-deficient humans which methods of administration are superior to others. The best way to take rHGH is to mimic the way the body secretes it. Injecting subq releases it very slowly causing a GH bleed which desensitizes the GH receptors. This is NOT what we want and is totally unlike the way the body releases it which is through pulses. Injecting IM releases and clears the pulse a lot quicker as it gets into the bloodstream more quickly through the muscle. IV is obviously the best way to inject for effectiveness as it goes straight into the bloodstream and clears more quickly than IM and a lot quicker than subq. I understand a lot of people are uncomfortable injecting IV for obvious reasons. If this is the case, then IM is the next best thing. This is not "bro science", this is real science my friend.
Here is an excerpt from a discussion between 2 key researchers in this area concerning biological significance of hormonal pulsation:
From Norvartis Foundation Symposium 227:
David J. Waxman, Division of Cell and Molecular Biology, Dept. of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
Albert Goldbeter, Unite de ChronobilologieTheorique, Faculte des Sciences, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Campus Plaine, CP 231, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Waxman: You mentioned the frequency encoding of the response. It is clear that if the frequency becomes too rapid and there's insufficient time in the receptor system for resensitization, the result is a reduced effect and ultimately no effect. What happens if you go in the other direction, where frequency becomes distant, and there is a non-physiological long time between pulses? Would you expect to have a loss of responsiveness?
Goldbeter: WHen the interval between pulses is very large a maximum response is generated by each pulse. However a cell may need to generate a certain number of responses in a given time. ...
...
Hence the probable existence of an optimum interval: if the interval between two pulses is too short, then desensitization ensues; if the interval is too long, the mean intracellular response over time may not be sufficient to establish the desired level of intracellular messenger needed, for example, for gene expression linked to an increased mean level of cAMP.
Waxman: That's interesting, because in the GH system for example, Agneta Mode demonstrated in the early 1980s that twice per day GH treatment given to a hypophysectomized rat, which is much less frequent then the physiological frequency of six or seven times a day, was sufficient to achieve a biological response. In later studies that we carried out, we showed that as we increased the frequency everything was fine until we exceeded - even only slightly - the natural GH pulse frequency, in which case the response was totally lost....
Just research GH pulsation and ways of administration on google. The truth is out there ... lol.
WELL I THINK I CAN ANSWER ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS. if you have a 10 iu bottle, no matter how you break it up its 10 iu. no way around that unless you are Jesus and feeding 5000. on the other i have read many places that it doesnt matter and the instructions say sub q so maybe they done the research already and came up with that ????
That is not necessarily true. Yes 10iu is 10iu, but the effects on the body can be very different when you take into consideration all the other factors which can have an effect. Timing, dosage, food consumption (insulin), and the means of administration are only some of the factors which could be the difference between wasting 10iu or getting the effects equivalent of 20-30iu from just 10 iu.
ok i think i get what you are trying to say but i would still say your 10iu is 10iu. you are trying to find out then how to get the best effect (result) from your GH so as not to waist any by the body rejecting what it may not need or it not being used fully by the body for any reason. i understand but again i answered the question in the terms i thought it was written. i hear ya more clearly now.