Is 2IU of HGH better overall for anti aging and longevity in comparison to growth hormone secretagogues? Or perhaps peptides like GHK- Cu?
HGH seems to be the way to go, but would like to avoid side effects such as water retention and elevated prolactin.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2 IU HGH isn’t automatically bad and not everyone gets sides, but it’s also not clearly better for longevity. Even at that dose it raises baseline GH/IGF‑1 in a non‑physiologic way and can still cause water retention, insulin issues, and occasionally prolactin elevation depending on the person.
That said… GH is great for muscle growth, just not as a direct anabolic. It shines at recovery, connective tissue strength, satellite cell activation, and long‑term muscle accrual. It’s a force multiplier, not the main engine.
Secretagogues (sermorelin, ipamorelin, CJC‑1295 no DAC)
might (weak) be more longevity‑friendly since they preserve GH pulsatility, but I’m not fully sold. There isn’t a lot of strong long‑term human data in healthy aging populations, most evidence is short‑term and focused on hormone levels, not real longevity outcomes. Mechanistically sound, evidence still limited.
GHK‑Cu is a different lane altogether, no effect on GH/IGF‑1, but excellent for skin, collagen, and tissue repair with very low risk.
If avoiding edema and prolactin is your top priority, secretagogues + repair peptides can make sense. But let’s be real: water retention and prolactin aren’t guaranteed at 2 IU. Tons of people run it with zero issues.
LOL this literally came up with a close friend of mine, a touring musician/podcaster/journalist who stockpiled GH before moving to Europe and never used it because he thought his head and hands would blow up
. I told him the same thing: 2 IU is therapeutic, especially for someone living on planes, stages, and bad sleep. The acromegaly fear at that dose is wildly overblown.
Sometimes you just have to stop overthinking it and run the damn GH.
.
