• 👋Hello, please SIGN-UP FOR A FREE account and become a member of our community!
    You will then be able to start threads, post comments and send messages to other members. Thanks!
  • 💪IronMag Labs® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.ironmaglabs.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

GH lab results.

quinn a

Registered User
Registered
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
575
Reaction score
150
Points
43
Get Shredded!
Been running for a little over 6 weeks. 3.3iu a day. Got my labs back today.

4ede712f7ba8d6d7d74e2f63cc8a8af3.jpg
4ede712f7ba8d6d7d74e2f63cc8a8af3.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yes I have them saved, looking for them now. Is 3.3iu average normal not to even hit the higher range of the test ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yes I have them saved, looking for them now. Is 3.3iu average normal not to even hit the higher range of the test ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
300+ is a good igf score for 3iu and above the "normal high" range Dr look at.

Typically you'll see 100igf for every 1iu on blood results
 
Yes I have them saved, looking for them now. Is 3.3iu average normal not to even hit the higher range of the test ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you are able include GH serum with your IGF-1 test.
 
300+ is a good igf score for 3iu and above the "normal high" range Dr look at.

Typically you'll see 100igf for every 1iu on blood results
Montego1,
Where are you getting this information about what a doctor looks at as "normal-high?' Just the reference range on the blood test? Could that be like the testosterone reference range, which keeps getting lower because men have lower testosterone now?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2355952
I ask because these patients were considered low at 350 or lower. Their hgh regimen placed them up at 500-1500
The full text is available at the link in the upper right hand corner.

8.8% increase in lean mass.

14.4% decrease in fat mass.

1.6% increase in bone density.

7.1% increase in skin thickness.

They were administering 3 times a week. Roughly 8 iu 3 times a week, depending upon bodyweight of the patient.
 
Last edited:
Montego1,
Where are you getting this information about what a doctor looks at as "normal-high?' Just the reference range on the blood test? Could that be like the testosterone reference range, which keeps getting lower because men have lower testosterone now?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2355952
I ask because these patients were considered low at 350 or lower. Their hgh regimen placed them up at 500-1500
The full text is available at the link in the upper right hand corner.

8.8% increase in lean mass.

14.4% decrease in fat mass.

1.6% increase in bone density.

7.1% increase in skin thickness.

They were administering 3 times a week. Roughly 8 iu 3 times a week, depending upon bodyweight of the patient.
Might want to read the test above and then read the study again for your answer.
 
How many times should I read them before you think I will find the answer with no clue from you as to the mysterious information for which I am searching?
 
I mean the way the igf in this test is scored right there on the paper in ng/ml.

The study you posted is UNITS per Liter.

Doesn't even say what unit they used.
 
IML Gear Cream!
I mean the way the igf in this test is scored right there on the paper in ng/ml.

The study you posted is UNITS per Liter.

Doesn't even say what unit they used.
Units, or U?
I'll be blunt and say here that I took that to mean ug, since the letter u is used as shorthand, which would make the scales precisely the same (ug per liter is the same as ng/ml).


BUT - please correct me if you think I am wrong. What else could the letter u, as in "U per Liter," stand for in a published scientific paper? I am no biologist or hormone researcher, so I honestly do not know what else it could be. If you do, let me know. I am always open to learning new stuff. What other scales are used for testing IGF-1, that other researchers reading this paper would immediately recognize and find useful when reading the measurement in "U per liter?"
 
I guess I should add that when I say the letter u, I mean the Greek letter, mu, which looks like a little u, but this is often typographically unavailable, so I just assumed this is what the researchers meant. My assumption could be wrong, but I need a better assumption with which to replace it.
 
Montego1, I do not know myself, so I am just using Google. Here is what U of NC Chapel Hill has to say in their dictionary of measurements about the letter u:

a common replacement for µ- as a symbol for the SI prefix micro- (10[SUP]-6[/SUP]). The symbol is frequently seen in combinations such as ug for the microgram (µg). The use of u- was approved by the International Organization for Standardization in its standard ISO 2955, issued in 1974. The problem at that time was that many of the character sets in common use did not include the Greek letter µ. This is much less of a problem today, so ISO 2955 has been withdrawn and is no longer in effect. The message from all standards agencies now is: use µ-, not u-, for micro-.
 
Looks to me like it just says unit

Unless they specify what unit is used, you're just assuming.

But you can clearly see the refrence range posted in his lab work on the high end of normal.
 
The study I linked was published almost 28 years ago, so that explanation would make the most sense.
 
Looks to me like it just says unit
Please explain. I ran a text search on the entire text and do not find what you just wrote.
"plasma IGF-I concentrations of less than 350 U per liter during a six-month base-line" not unit
"In group 1, the mean plasma IGF-I level rose into the youthful range of 500 to 1500 U per liter during treatment, whereas in group 2 it remained below 350 U per liter" Not unit

"In group 1, the mean plasma IGF-I concentration ranged from 200 to 250 U per liter throughout the base-line period (Table 3). Within one month after the administration of growth hormone had been initiated, the mean IGF-I level rose to 830 U per liter (P<0.05), and it remained near this value for the next five months." Not unit.
And so on in every example of IGF-1 results.

I searched the text of the entire study, and the only time "unit per liter" is mentioned is in the dose of growth hormone injected, not IGF-1 levels.

Unless they specify what unit is used, you're just assuming.
Well, true, I am, but I am assuming based on all of the available evidence, including the information I gave you above about the letter u being used for the Greek letter u, as shorthand for micrograms, ug, as the general reference back then due to the unavailability of the Greek letter in fonts to publish. That is no longer the case, but it was in 1990 (remember what word processors were like back then?). I admit I could be wrong, but all of the evidence points to me being right, not wrong, and there is no counter evidence yet.

But you can clearly see the refrence range posted in his lab work on the high end of normal.
Yes. If you look at reference ranges by age, you will see it drop even lower than that by age each decade after the 20s. My question to you is twofold - (1) is that the standard? Think about testosterone? Would you want to use the low end of the published range right now for your doctor's "normal?" Lots of doctors do.
(2) Why do we see such lower IGF-1 results than studies?

I suppose I could go out and find more modern studies with U being replace by ug.
 
Units Per Litre (U/L)

The results of some medical tests are reported in units per litre (U/L).

A unit is an arbitrary amount agreed upon by scientists and doctors.

A litre is a measure of volume that is slightly larger than a quart.

A kilo unit is one thousand units. It is written kU/L. Some medical tests are reported using this stand



See the first bullet point.
 
Ok, so which one is arbitrarily agreed upon by scientists and doctors, so that we can make some sense out of what you are saying with respect to this particular study? Note they did write "unit" when referring to dosing, but only U when referring to IGF-1 test results, so they knew how to write unit if that is what they wanted to write. It seems much more plausible they they were using U to stand for the Greek u . . .

But if you tell me this agreed upon unit so that I can figure out if it makes sense with respect to this study, that would help a lot. Oddly, if you go with the ug it all fits just fine when your read the study (and by the way, I have stumbled upon several other studies from around the same time period that are written the same way). Which other arbitrarily agreed upon unit fits? It would have to make sense in a way that other researchers reading would knew what these authors meant, right?
 
Ok, so which one is arbitrarily agreed upon by scientists and doctors, so that we can make some sense out of what you are saying with respect to this particular study? Note they did write "unit" when referring to dosing, but only U when referring to IGF-1 test results, so they knew how to write unit if that is what they wanted to write. It seems much more plausible they they were using U to stand for the Greek u . . .

But if you tell me this agreed upon unit so that I can figure out if it makes sense with respect to this study, that would help a lot. Oddly, if you go with the ug it all fits just fine when your read the study (and by the way, I have stumbled upon several other studies from around the same time period that are written the same way). Which other arbitrarily agreed upon unit fits? It would have to make sense in a way that other researchers reading would knew what these authors meant, right?
I'm gonna let you figure this one out on your own.

I've explained my point. Op blood work shows the ranges.

You're just trying to either cause an argument or discredit a product. Either way I'm not playing with you anymore.
 
Back
Top