LOL! At first I thought this thread was going to be a source post judging by the subject title.Aczech said:if someone wants to send me some, i'll use it
.Aczech said:if someone wants to send me some, i'll use it
bmass said:But i´ll give you reasons why a young person shouldnt take hgh , first your body makes alot of hormones, drop in hormones begines after the age of 25 so you would need high doses.
Second if you are not a competing bodybuilder its totaly unessecery IMO.
Third there is a better and stronger drug : Lr3igf-1
And Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) is the best for massbuildning.
Im 30 years old and i tried hgh for the first time last year, i ran jintropin 4ius/day with insulin and Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) for 6 months and i wasent impressed at all, i liked Lr3igf-1 better but thats overrated also.
Anytime you're inhibiting myostatin, there's going to be muscle growth for sure. If my math is correct, however, these subjects were taking in excess of 10ius/day.bmass said:Hgh is not a good massbuilding drug period! You show me one study that showes good muscle growth from hgh,you wont find it.
They made a couple of studys on HIV-patients and they got high doses more then 13ius/day and they didnt see any massbuilding effects on them and also there have been studies made on weightlifters and other athleats and the same result no gains in leanmuscle mass. And many scientists cant understand why people use it ,ok they admitt that HGH in combination with Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) could have some effect but nothing great.
What are you trying to say? That 20-25yr olds should just take HGH just "because", I thought the whole point was to take HGH to build muscle; which I agree with BMASS that it's overrated and mass marketed on false pretenses.panteracfh said:1st 4ius/day is significantly higher than your natural secretion.
2nd, necessity is an invalid in reasoning why or why not to do GH. Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) are totally unnecessary, almost everything in your life is unnecessary...
3rd- right on this one, Lr3igf-1 is def. stronger
You are right that GH is NOT a good MASS BUILDER but that is irrelevant in regards to people 20-25 taking it or not.
I'd like to know how old these subjects were. And also to point out, that these are not bodybuilders but are regular people. It's easy for a regular joe to go to the gym and build an ammount of MASS naturally to a POINT, but it's BEYOND that point that GH will most likely not help you build anymore muscle as Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) would. if you get what I mean.DocJ said:Anytime you're inhibiting myostatin, there's going to be muscle growth for sure. If my math is correct, however, these subjects were taking in excess of 10ius/day.
---------------------------------------------
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Nov;88(11):5490-6.
Myostatin is a skeletal muscle target of growth hormone anabolic action.Liu W, Thomas SG, Asa SL, Gonzalez-Cadavid N, Bhasin S, Ezzat S.
Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital and University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Myostatin is a cytokine that has recently been shown to selectively and potently inhibit myogenesis. To investigate the mechanisms of anabolic actions of GH on skeletal muscle growth, we examined the in vitro and in vivo effects of GH on myostatin regulation. Twelve GH-deficient hypopituitary adult subjects were treated with recombinant GH (5 micro g/kg.d) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled fashion. Body composition and physical function were assessed and skeletal muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis performed at 6-monthly intervals during 18 months of treatment. Myostatin mRNA expression was significantly inhibited to 31 +/- 9% (P < 0.001) of control by GH but not by placebo administration (79 +/- 11%) as determined by quantitative real-time PCR normalized for the housekeeping glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene. The inhibitory effect of GH on myostatin was sustained after 12 and 18 months of GH treatment. These effects were associated with increases in lean body mass and translated into enhanced aerobic performance as determined by maximal oxygen uptake and ventilation threshold. Parallel in vitro studies of skeletal muscle cells demonstrated significant reduction of myostatin expression by myotubes in response to GH, compared with vehicle treatment. Conversely, GH receptor antagonism resulted in up-regulation of myostatin in myoblasts. Given the potent catabolic actions of myostatin, our data suggest that myostatin represents a potential key target for GH-induced anabolism.
Not exactly, read my first post. I'm saying that it cannot be said as a general statement that its a waste of money and that people that age have no business being on GH.pineapple said:What are you trying to say? That 20-25yr olds should just take HGH just "because"
panteracfh said:Also, nowhere did i say that GH is a good mass builder. Personally i take it for fat loss and skin tone.
Nothing significant yet, ive only just got into my 3rd kit, so if I have noticed something i'm not sure if its just cause im looking for it, but my skin tone is generally poor since i had acne when i was younger.Lucky13 said:At 20ish years old what exactly have you noticed with regards to skin tone ?
The only thing in life that's permanent is DEATH and TAXES. Everything else you gotta maintain.simpllyhuge said:so are the gains from gh permanent. And what about the fat loss.
Depends on if you buy into the idea of HGH (through IGF-1 influence) creates the environment for hyperplasia, which of course doesn't have too much evidence in it's favor (so far).pineapple said:The only thing in life that's permanent is DEATH and TAXES. Everything else you gotta maintain.