• 👋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!
  • 💪Check Out IronMag Labs Andro Hard® - Powered by R-Andro & Epi-Andro! 💊
  • 👉Check Out Platinum Pharms🌽Corn Hole Sale!🌽

What does HGH really do?

See post #21 for the somatomedin standard. This is the unit if measure that is referenced in the study at hand, the description of which I pulled from the original Furlanetto et al study.
 
GarlicChicken said:
See post #21 for the somatomedin standard. This is the unit if measure that is referenced in the study at hand, the description of which I pulled from the original Furlanetto et al study.
Click to expand...
Gives me a good place to start, thanks. Since it says U of somatomedin activity / ml, it does not appear to fit U per liter, but I will dig deeper (and I hope you do, too).
 
All I have found so far is that the tests we use today appear to be WHO recombinant reference standard NIBSC 02/254 for IGF-1.
 
Yeah it's a completely abstract reference range. It does state however, that their lab has used this methodology for analysis for 2 years prior...so maybe there's a study we can find where they actually state the UofM in a usable/translatable standard.
 
GarlicChicken said:
Here's the Furlanetto et al reference study used to establish the unit of measure for U/L. It's the top under "somatomedin standard." It literally doesn't say what the actual measurement is. So there's literally no comparing this measurement to what we use.
504b232ceadabd84fd8999c8e698a8b6.jpg
Click to expand...


Two quick questions:

(1) I see a screenshot or a cut and paste - do you have a link to the actual original so that we can read in context?

and

(2) Why do you say this standard is what was used in the study linked in the original post?

I am a little lost with the information you provided in post #21.
 
Ah, never mind, I think I found it. Unfortunately, I cannot find footnote 19 in the study from the OP.

Anyway, thanks, I think you provided a very good clue that will lead us to a conclusion. I am not ready to declare yet that there is "no way to know." Surely there is one. We just have to find it.
 
malfeasance said:
Ah, never mind, I think I found it. Unfortunately, I cannot find footnote 19 in the study from the OP.

Anyway, thanks, I think you provided a very good clue that will lead us to a conclusion. I am not ready to declare yet that there is "no way to know." Surely there is one. We just have to find it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess my "no way to know" was a little hasty. I still think that, given that they consider 500-1500 U/L as the "normal" range for a healthy 20-40 year old male, we're not looking at that much of a differentiation from what we see here.

Also, your math is absolutely correct on the approx 27iu or so weekly. I didn't even catch that before. I was thinking the daily dose and didn't finish the math on that one
 
Do you have a link to the stuff from post #21? I am having a hard time coming up with it, since the author published so much on IGF-1
 
malfeasance said:
Two quick questions:

(1) I see a screenshot or a cut and paste - do you have a link to the actual original so that we can read in context?

and

(2) Why do you say this standard is what was used in the study linked in the original post?

I am a little lost with the information you provided in post #21.
Click to expand...


Here I'll post this from my computer since it's much easier to take screenshots and so on. *Except I can't get my damn clipboard items to paste from Greenshot...annoying!

In the original study, there is a link to the full study text/material at the bottom of the page under "LinkOut - More Resources" you can view the full text on the Atypon link here:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NE...sref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&

On this page, you can go to figures/media tab at the top. I can't remember where I found the reference to this figure, but somewhere in there it has Table 1 as the reference. In table 1, you can see at the bottom where it references the study as reference #19. You can then go to that study from the link. I just went to the Crossref link and downloaded the PDF, which is where I found that snippet you posted there. Every single link references back to this one where it has it in PDF format.

https://www.jci.org/articles/view/108816
 
GarlicChicken said:
Yeah it's a completely abstract reference range. It does state however, that their lab has used this methodology for analysis for 2 years prior...so maybe there's a study we can find where they actually state the UofM in a usable/translatable standard.
Click to expand...

I was reading all of this from my phone in bed last night and I easily mistakenly misunderstood almost entirely everything skimming too fast.. but now I see the measurements that are utilized to what is appropriate and their standards for their analysis, basically their lingo and language.. I have been having a hard time finding a translation for what the reference is... It is out there and I have been painstakingly looking for it all morning long..

But in regards to your reference with the 500-1500, they're almost contradicting themselves because they're making references at 250u being the Baseline protocol.. were their subjects provided with a low amount to give them the concentration of a baseline level before they increase the dosages? Because if I'm not mistaking it doesn't say it's their Baseline reading it says it's their therapeutic Baseline reading.. so my take on that is that they're giving a therapeutic dosage yielding 250 U which in their standard is the Baseline to what a natural subject would be at..
 
malfeasance said:
Found it!

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3fc2/5608399c9288bd84adbdc987ea94a1b8dcd5.pdf

It helped knowing it was from 1977.
Click to expand...

That's the one! I would've posted the link sooner but I'm at work and have to keep doing...work lol. That is a really old study, but it's also referencing that they've been using that standard for two years. There's gotta be something published out there.

Anyhow, thanks for keeping on this! Really interesting stuff. I gotta get back to working but I'll come check in when I get a chance. It's awesome that we still have people on here that are genuinely interested in the data and don't just take people's word for granted. Looking forward to getting back to this
 
LOL! I found it the long way.

AND it contains our answer. I am not going to post my firm conclusion, yet, since I want to make sure I am correct, but the answer is in the Furlanetto research, right on the first page. It looks like the elderly were brought to the top of the reference range, meaning three something, not 15 hundred something, using the reference range we use today.
 
Skinnyguy180 said:
Please send all gh to me and I will confirm your points...


I promise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
please send me cash amount for the pharma growth and I will purchase generics for research purposes.
 
One point.

I have NEVER seen a baseline blood test over 300ng/ml so the "healthy young range" of 500-1500 doesn't make any sense.

I've never even heard of 1000ng/ml on high doses of gh.

I know I've seen charts that show teens in the 600's but I've never seen anything even close to that.

That's the main reason I not buying that unit if measurement.
 
I'm late yall are putting in detective work lol.

I'll wait for some conclusion but I still don't buy it
 
I have a simple question how long does it take to raise igf-1 numbers ??? I understand our HGH protocol bloods drawn 3hrs after injection. But how about igf-1 numbers do they rise quickly?? Or does it take time and if so how much time we talking? If I'm up on my bro science lolz I believe I read somewhere on here that every IU of hgh should raise igf-1 numbers by ruffly 100 points. I'm currently a few weeks in on a gh run didn't have igf-1 base line done so I'm just curious as to how long it takes

granabolic.is granabolic@protonmail.com
 
johnjohn said:
I have a simple question how long does it take to raise igf-1 numbers ??? I understand our HGH protocol bloods drawn 3hrs after injection. But how about igf-1 numbers do they rise quickly?? Or does it take time and if so how much time we talking? If I'm up on my bro science lolz I believe I read somewhere on here that every IU of hgh should raise igf-1 numbers by ruffly 100 points. I'm currently a few weeks in on a gh run didn't have igf-1 base line done so I'm just curious as to how long it takes

granabolic.is granabolic@protonmail.com
Click to expand...

That is entirely not true.. because I have seen people with some pretty decent growth hormone serum levels, and 5 Weeks Later have average or slightly above-average igf levels and they were on pharmaceutical script, and I've seen people on generic have some decent growth hormone serum levels but have some very very respectable igf levels... The truth of the matter is a lot of people respond differently with igf levels.. in my opinion it's the go-to number as a better indicator verse a growth hormone serum, but the truth is it's not uncommon that some people just don't respond well with igf levels.. your reference with a 100 is like saying every 200-250mg and testosterone should be a 1000ng/ml, I see guys making these claims that its textbook with testosterone injections and they should be within a certain parameter.. all of these windows and spectrum's people should be falling under is completely inaccurate.. these so-called textbook parameters should just be tossed out the window.. because so much shit could affect levels at any given time.. I have literally seen people sabotage and destroy a good growth hormone brand because they particularly did not score well, and it was just sad to witness.. everyone will not respond the same that is the goddamn truth..
 
IML Gear Cream!
Vision said:
That is entirely not true.. because I have seen people with some pretty decent growth hormone serum levels, and 5 Weeks Later have average or slightly above-average igf levels and they were on pharmaceutical script, and I've seen people on generic have some decent growth hormone serum levels but have some very very respectable igf levels... The truth of the matter is a lot of people respond differently with igf levels.. in my opinion it's the go-to number as a better indicator verse a growth hormone serum, but the truth is it's not uncommon that some people just don't respond well with igf levels.. your reference with a 100 is like saying every 200-250mg and testosterone should be a 1000ng/ml, I see guys making these claims that its textbook with testosterone injections and they should be within a certain parameter.. all of these windows and spectrum's people should be falling under is completely inaccurate.. these so-called textbook parameters should just be tossed out the window.. because so much shit could affect levels at any given time.. I have literally seen people sabotage and destroy a good growth hormone brand because they particularly did not score well, and it was just sad to witness.. everyone will not respond the same that is the goddamn truth..
Click to expand...
Like I said bro science lol on that part. But how about the actual time of raising the levels?? That's my main question is it quickly raised or does it take time to raise those numbers

granabolic.is granabolic@protonmail.com
 
johnjohn said:
Like I said bro science lol on that part. But how about the actual time of raising the levels?? That's my main question is it quickly raised or does it take time to raise those numbers

granabolic.is granabolic@protonmail.com
Click to expand...

No I definitely seen your broscience comment but I just wanted to emphasize on it that it's really just that bro science.. but at the same time I do support bro science to a degree because it has its place..
But far igf levels, is the most common for the vast majority of users to expect after 4 or 5 weeks to see a significant increase at that time and that's when serum levels would be near a peek and optimal for blood testing.. they will rise during the weeks, but five weeks is when it's a good time to get a snapshot of Bloods and see where you're at..
 
Montego1 said:
I'm late yall are putting in detective work lol.

I'll wait for some conclusion but I still don't buy it
Click to expand...
I think it's a legitimate number, it's just in a reference that's different than our normal one. Has to be. The problem is that the reference was established in 1975ish, so we're trying to find what it actually is looking at. It's definitely an arbitrary measurement so we'll figure out what it is. Then we can translate it into something more normal to us
 
GarlicChicken said:
I think it's a legitimate number, it's just in a reference that's different than our normal one. Has to be. The problem is that the reference was established in 1975ish, so we're trying to find what it actually is looking at. It's definitely an arbitrary measurement so we'll figure out what it is. Then we can translate it into something more normal to us
Click to expand...

What's funny about it is I was reading it not even looking at their subjective measurements, and I was just seeing numbers which we are all used to and I was fast to make my own assessment.. but you my dude did some methodical investigating and that was pretty impressive, between you and Mal, both of you guys really dissected this well.. I definitely made some personal notes that's for damn sure..
 
There are two types of IGF-1...endocrine which is secreted from the liver naturally and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 which enters the blood stream from a exogenous source...

Endocrine IGF-1 is not effected by glucose or insulin except with prolonged use...its primary effect is increased metabolism(fat loss/anti aging)...autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 coming from a exogenous source like HGH or Increlex can effect glucose and insulin levels but it also has a high bioavailability for protein binding...so increased hyperplasia on the androgen receptor and increased muscle hyprothrophy(gains) as it bypasses the satellite cells..

Best approach is a dual approach of both endrocine and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 in the blood stream...this can be achieved by exogenous HGH/Increlex and by aromatse of testosterone which releases IGF-1 from the liver...so best of both worlds..
 
s2h said:
There are two types of IGF-1...endocrine which is secreted from the liver naturally and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 which enters the blood stream from a exogenous source...

Endocrine IGF-1 is not effected by glucose or insulin except with prolonged use...its primary effect is increased metabolism(fat loss/anti aging)...autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 coming from a exogenous source like HGH or Increlex can effect glucose and insulin levels but it also has a high bioavailability for protein binding...so increased hyperplasia on the androgen receptor and increased muscle hyprothrophy(gains) as it bypasses the satellite cells..

Best approach is a dual approach of both endrocine and autocrine/paracrine IGF-1 in the blood stream...this can be achieved by exogenous HGH/Increlex and by aromatse of testosterone which releases IGF-1 from the liver...so best of both worlds..
Click to expand...

He's back!!!!!! I told you you wouldn't lose your touch.. ;)
 
In my years of reading I have seen different brands of HGH with differing iu to mg. 2.6 iu to 3 iu per mg is the range I most often see. I would feel comfortable using either to calculate dosages when there is no guidance.
 
I ran 10+ iu of Puretropin for almost 7 months straight. Stopped like 6 months ago


Helped my hip enough that i avoided surgery (although gonna probably need to have surgery now so it was sorta a temp fix). Couldnt gain fat to save my life.
Actually dropped about 6% bodyfat eating shit food.
Slept like a log and would fall asleep if I sat down for more than 5 minutes.
Felt full and oumped 24/7



Now interestingly enough, I noticed that even after months of not taking any, my "baseline" bodyfat seems to be around 14% vs the 20% I normally held at (used to stay around 200lbs at 20% without training and eating so so...now its 200 around 14%)
Also had some joint growth most noticeable in my hands/fingers.


I got enough to run 20ius for about 3 months so thinking about doing it just because its reaching the end of its shelf life.
 
Back
Top