Thinking about GH - thoughts?

Hong Kong Yanpep International
the IGF at 207 after a week off is in the range where you're still not seeing fully cleared baseline if you were running HGH at a meaningful dose - the half-life math means residual levels can persist longer than a week at higher doses. a two-week washout is the more reliable interval for a clean baseline reading
 
Yeah, once I saw my igf reading at 500 I dropped the dose. So you're saying results would likely be better on HGH compared to tesa, assuming igf-1 stays consistent across both?
 
Also want to push back on the idea that tesa is inherently safer than hgh. When you match equivalent doses using igf1 response as the benchmark, the risk profile between the two is basically identical.
 
Haven't started actual growth hormone yet, just the combo so far.

Will likely run the standard four unit dose when I do start. Planning to check labs down the road to fine-tune igf-1 into the right range.
 
Honestly surprised by that diagnosis. Getting the pituitary gland to naturally boost growth hormone through secretagogues gets genuinely tough past 40, assuming a typical person rather than an elite athlete.
 
Maybe. Correlation isnt causation, but the link is very strong with cancers of the prostate, breast, colon or thyroid, and no lab test can promise you'll be fine on long-term HGH. Bro science skips the obvious: cancer means uncontrolled growth, and the H in HGH stands for growth. The upside is debatable too, since these guys also run reta or steroids and credit HGH. Risk versus benefit looks lousy next to TRT. People take testosterone alone, but almost nobody takes just HGH. I think testosterone and GLPs carry the load for HGH bros, recovery included, and HGH is the garnish at most. GH peptides are great for the labs though, with IGF-1 and ideally fasting insulin, A1C and glucose to test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top