+ 7 IGF-1 Test of Angtropin GH at 2.5iu for 36 Days
Alright guys, not sure what to make of all this. So I am going to just post what info I have and people can make their own decisions.
Protocol was exactly as follows:
2.5iu Upon Waking (around 5-6am) everyday for 90iu (36 days)
Bloods were drawn on the 6th week of the cycle below
Monday 7/11/22 - 2.5iu at 5-6am
Tuesday 7/12/22 - 2.5iu at 5:03am
Bloods drawn at 8:30am approx on 7/12
AAS at the time (6 week blast):
Test Cyp: 262mg AW
Tren Ace: 210mg AW
Mast E: 350mg AW
Dbol - 20 pre / 10 post 3xAW (weeks 1-5)
Var - 25mg pre 2xAW (dropped week 1)
Other Meds/Aux at the time
Metformin - 500mg PM (dropped after week 1 due to gas)
Telmisartan - 20mg ED (weeks 5-on)
Aromasin - 12.5mg EOD (weeks 3-on)
Supps (the amount of health supps I am in is extensive, if there is a specific one you want to know just ask)
No high dose Biotin in diet/supps
History with GH
I have never been a big fan of GH. It is very expensive and does not build muscle on its own very well in comparison to AAS which is very cheap and effective at building muscle. So I have not ran very much in the past and have not gotten IGF1 baseline. I decided to do this IGF1 test when I already had started the Angs after seeing many others without a baseline. I cannot imagine that based on; my age, 1g of gear including Tren Ace, healthy liver and kidneys (assessed through bloods and imaging) and usually higher estradiol on cycle would not have a pretty high resting IGF1. But I simply do not know, At least I have a point of comparison now for the future.
Before I posted on here I contacted source and gave them a chance to explain themselves because I will be the first to admit that this serum IGF1 stuff is very complicated and reliant on a lot of factors. He proved the link below which was a very good read but just complicated things even more. The only thing I am a little annoyed at is that I checked in twice with source before doing this. Once to ask if this was something he would comp, and then again at week 5 before I purchased the test I again confirmed with source that I would be comped. At both points he was nothing but enthusiastic which shows his confidence in his products. Only after the test came back low I was now told I needed to do very specific testing, that it needed to be dosed 24hrs exactly before hand, that Labcorp is not as reliable, that I should of gotten a baseline before (out of pocket I guess? $80), DHTs can interfere. This information would of been beneficial before hand so I could of controlled some of the factors. I told him that I would I felt it was fair to post up the results and all the information and factors and let people make their own decision, which he agreed. I will say that throughout this process USDOMHGH has been very courteous and is still going to honor the $80 store credit, so thank you for that. Personally I am not satisfied with the results but there are too many variables at play for me to make any definitive statements.
IGF1 Variability Link Below
https://www.eroids.com/forums/hgh-peptides/rhgh/dont-get-eaten-by-the-fa...
- Bookmark
- 7
- 0
From what I’ve seen on other tests , igf numbers have been lower when running a dht . There was a guy from a few years ago that had some information claiming dht derivatives did lower igf scores . Also would’ve been good to know your baseline . Not a bad number but would’ve thought to seen a higher score . I know big tone scored real good with the angs..
Likely because they lower estrogen, but I do not know for sure if DHTs do this. Remember this is exogenous growth hormone not endogenous. Also I think it is curious that everyone always leads with "well you could of been really low to start", yeah and I could of not been. A 260lb bodybuilder on a gram of AAS with tren, bell curve I'm likely in the middle or even higher, of course I don't know. The average for my age is about 180-200 based on studies I have seen. Again inconclusive but I am the type of guy that if I do not know about something I will learn it. Already deep in research. Thanks for your comments brother, just kinda venting at you.
Also did big tone get a baseline? It seems like this all comes up when someone tests low not high.
I agree with you man. In all honesty your baseline is probably around 200 if not close to it .. I had mine tested around 6 years ago and I was at 189 .. good luck brotha
Thanks for listening to me bitch, cheers
Thanks for posting. Look that's what this is about, learning through our experiences. There no no lab controlled testing on PED users for this reason, we are the testing and the test subjects. We live and learn. We should try different things to find out what is best methods, protocols, etc. This is good information and in my opinion not a bad number. I had testing done on same product and I had many factors playing a part and believe I would have got higher numbers too (my number was good) my liver enzymes were very high from having over trained with tanked testosterone levels but after researching like you I learned many things and I will keep testing too to see what and how we can improve.
I can only speak to my own experience on this. And refer to some of what I’ve found in the literature based on prior labs with running GH.
I’ve had some very high numbers in the past and not so high numbers on the same dose, consistent with right around where yours are.
That being said I was NOT running a DHT injectable or oral compound at the time that I can remember when I pulled low numbers. The ONLY difference for me was running an aromatase inhibitor. And my estrogen being lower than it was had I not been running one. Which I did find evidence of in the literature, quoted several times I’m sure of it. Estrogen being one several primary factors for the production IGF-1. I’m not sure how much SHBG May have to do with it all.
When I discontinued the aromatase inhibitor and redrew labs, using the same dose, same protocol, same brand, IGF-1 levels DID rise to where I expected them to be.
In regards to vengar post below, I think I’ve always used Quest, through privatemdlabs
I agree man, I mention it briefly that my estrogen is usually high and I would assume that would put me higher but did not get that value either, I believe I will next time as well to see if it is a factor. As you know most my background is in AAS and supps so this I am learning on the fly with a lot of this IGF1 GH stuff.
I have plenty of bloodwork showing my estradiol high on 750 test but that is a weird stack with dbol in there, low test, mod tren and mast, pulled dbol at the end, minimal AI but in there, again too many factors for me to say its bunk for sure. And no idea where my estradiol was at or how methyl estradiol impacted everything. Or my starting IGF1, just hard for me to think with everything in play its not higher but inconclusive. Will be testing another brand with better protocol and see difference.
I can definitely believe that estrogen has a role to play in increasing IGF-1 numbers.
Summary: Labcorp uses Immunochemiluminometric assay (ICMA). Mast may interfere with ICMA. LC/MS is more accurate so order through Quest. Credit to @MegaT883
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25337924/
https://www.labcorp.com/tests/010540/insulin-like-growth-factor-1-igf-1-...
Yeah just wish I would of known this before hand. I did reach out to a couple of people on here to ask and no one mentioned it, including source.
I'll take partial responsibility for not doing deeper research.
It would be cool if the source offered to pay for a re-test using LC/MS. It would give us an idea of how much these tests differ.
Yeah the problem is it was the last bottle, I was under the impression the longer the better so I timed it so I had ran 90iu, 9 bottles and pinned the first 2.5 of my last bottle before bloods. Source would of had to send me more bottles and comp more testing and he probably thought it not worth it which I understand.
Now I know I only need 7 days I guess? Definitely a learning experience, he still is honoring the credit but now I do not wanna get more GH from him.. already pulled on another well known source and will do much better protocol to retest and now have this to compare to so all is not lost I guess.
He's the #1 domestic here, he can afford a $60 test + two vials.
I am willing but am not expecting
From what I've been told by guys who have had unlimited pockets - to really see some good muscle mass increase it has to be run at 8 to 10iu's per day or with the naughty stuff at possibly 6iu's. There has to be some good benefits with it with long term use given there is such a rapid decline of it in the body once we get above 30. If it helps prevent tendon tears etc then its worth it just for that factor. The only thing I don't like with HGH is that period shortly after injection of around an hour where it blocks glucose uptake from the blood into the muscle as it makes me feel very tired (or glucose into the blood - its one of the two lol)
TricepatopsDefinitely right GH to be used for a great muscle builder is high dose with the taboo along with some AAS. But then you are at risk for organs growing and getting the bloated look.
Also taking GH in the morning sometimes I will want to go back to sleep after shit can make me tired as hell some days.
I think high dose growth hormone is a waste of money
Remember I actually am in the bodybuilding world and have talked to many who have competed at the national level and never even touched it. It's not necessary and it's not a magic bullet, and it will not push you past your genetic potential. In fact your genetics dictate how well you will respond to it to begin with.
Yukon_JackGood shit press
IDK man that is so expensive, imagine running a whole kit of GH every 10 days.. You gotta be a pro already maxing out every possible vector for growth to even consider that. This website is mostly gym rats and it is hard for me to think any of this is even worth it for someone below 40 years old.
For sure, I think the guys who can run it like this are maybe sponsored by a source or lab.
Good deal with testing..So my man I'm with you in regards to your thinking that GH isn't a good muscle builder. That's always been my thought also. This would be a great topic of discussion. GH causes new muscle growth by hyperplasia as opposed to the normal hypertrophy which u already knew. I assume that hyperplasia is just a way slower process and that's why it takes awhile to truly see the muscle building of GH. Like you I'm more familiar with steroids and think they are better for muscle growth. Nevertheless GH is probably something I'll use as I get older.But it's got me curious
IDK man I think it is misunderstood, the jury is still out on that hyperplasia thing too, very difficult process of the body. GH probably works more through nutrient partitioning but that is a much bigger theoretical conversation. The majority of my research has been on supplements and AAS so it is out of my wheel house, I am learning more as I feel like I do not have time to not implement every possible vector for muscle growth. If I was younger I would not even look at this stuff.
Yea nutrient partitioning plays a part. Too damn expensive though
Yeah man $300 most places just to start
Bottle of Test Cyp? 30-50 bucks
Lol good ole Test!
Byanymeans78I second the thanks for the testing. My draw to hgh is the fact that it makes AAS work better lol but it's Def an expensive mechanism to do so.
Tell you what it definitely played a part of the pro bodybuilding MASS MONSTER ERA no doubt!
Byanymeans78Theirs no question in that.. if I remember correctly growth is the only thing that allows you to go past your genetic max IE your cutlers and colemans
Bro 80% of this forum runs GH if that were true this would be a different world
Byanymeans78Let me reiterate, what I more so meant was it creates new muscle tissue.
Byanymeans78I guess it doesn't matter cuz you discontinued the metformin but if I remember correctly doesn't metformin lower igf?
I do not think it was a factor based on when it was dropped
There is studies showing both but done on a lot of sick people ie diabetics
go look it up and come back with info
Byanymeans78Yeah I agree that I also don't believe it was a factor either I guess I just addressed it for you in the future. The only evidence I know and the way I learned about it lowering igf was from a vigorous Steve video.... he basically showed and explained that metformin lowers igf so in conjuction with using it with growth for an anti aging drug it's great. Ill do some research this afternoon to look more into it though.
If you read the link you will see the variability of IGF1 testing, that would extend to studies, do not think many studies involve exogenous GH + metformin, on healthy subjects, I do not think you will find any applicable data but good luck