Hgh injection method

[ketsugo]

A study of 20 ?? 20 kids? thats it? Kids? FLAWED right off the bat. You will always find too many studies. Ill stick with what thousands of successfull bodybuilders have been doing, what all the so called Bodybuilders who write manuals - Studies are typically flawed and biased in every field. When the day comes and you show me thousands of adults between 30 -50 exersicizing and weightlifting for a spell, then youmay have something to write about

 

[ketsugo]

OSIRIS - YOU HAVE MY ATTENTION

"far as administration methods, the three are IV,Subq, and IM. I use im because its the best mix of absorbtion and IGF conversion. The method with the greatest igf conversion is SubQ, the second is IM and IV has virtually no igf conversion. Then why do people IV gh? Well because it has to do with the clearance time and if they are using it IV, chances are they are taking cjc and ghrp to get the igf conversaion they need"

IM GENUINELY INTERESTED FOR YOU TO ELABORATE ON THE POINTS IN THE ABOVE PRAGRAPH, FASCINATING DAMN FASCANATING............

ALSO PLEASE ELABORAET AS TO WHY SUB Q HAS GREATEST IGF CONVERSION AND WHAT THAT MEANS - IM SURE MANY OF THE NEWER GUYS WILL ALSO FIND IT USEFUL, THAKS

 

[ketsugo]

first i'd like to state that i have pinned it both ways and saw no difference, therefore i would recommend shooting it subq because there is less risk (an infection in the muscle is much more serious.)

that being said, you have your facts backwards. I've seen multiple studies and even pamphlets from gh kits showing that gh administered subq actually has a slightly shorter half-life than im. Either way, there is virtually no difference in efficacy between subq and im, and since all else is virtually equal, subq seems to be the smart choice.

did i use the words ,"half life"?? Im actually trying to say it so one that has no idea what that means, but you and i actually are saying the same thing. Id like you to read what osiris stated too- igf conversion means - sorry charlie , starkist wants tuna that taste good

 

[osiris]

did i use the words ,"half life"?? Im actually trying to say it so one that has no idea what that means, but you and i actually are saying the same thing. Id like you to read what osiris stated too- igf conversion means - sorry charlie , starkist wants tuna that taste good

LMAO, you have an odd sense of humor ketsugo but then again so do i...=-)

The thing with gh administration methods and the igf conversion, i cannot go completely in depth into why subq creates the greatest igf conversion. There are numerous studies out there on it, a quick explanation would be the clearance and absorbption times of SUBQ related to the other three. IGF conversion does not begin immediately, it is more of an OH SHIT reaction of your body. Meaning that your body gets a supraphysiological dose of gh, then it binds directly tro gh receptors, if you administered it subq or im, then its still left hanging around for a bit, so your body's feedback loop to deal with the extra gh is to convert it igf. With IV the clearance time is very fast, slightly less than 20 minutes i believe and not near long enough for the body to being a systemic process like igf conversion in the liver.

SO why do i do im? Well i normally run some sort of igf on blasts anyway, i love lr3 but des is awesome too! SO i dont rely on the igf conversion from the gh. What i do like is the higher absorbtion rate if im and the faster clearance time. Its a good middle of the road administration method. Dosing im and doing my 10iu ed that i do, without slin being present, i normally test out at slightly over 600 on the igf test.

SAD, if you are taking gh that you think is going to possibly cause an infection, switch brands=-) There are great antibiotics that can fight infections in the skin and the muscle very easily. The real danger with gh comes into play with the endotoxins from poorly manufactured gh.

DO you guys wnat to know why insulin is present in some gh?

 

[osiris]

First I'd like to state that I have pinned it both ways and saw no difference, therefore I would recommend shooting it subq because there is less risk (an infection in the muscle is much more serious.)

That being said, you have your facts backwards. I've seen multiple studies and even pamphlets from GH kits showing that GH administered subq actually has a slightly shorter half-life than IM. Either way, there is virtually no difference in efficacy between subq and IM, and since all else is virtually equal, subq seems to be the smart choice.

these are not factual statements, there are studies too numerous to count, there is around a 10% greater absorbtion and much faster clearance time im over subq.

We can agree to disagree though, i am still learning every single day

 

[osiris]

One thing that you guys are forgetting about administering gh IM is the local expression of igf in the muscle adminstered in. This is not the same as systemic igf, this igf is produced and bound locally=-) Hence the reported site growth from gh.

O

 

[SAD]

A study of 20 ?? 20 kids? thats it? Kids? FLAWED right off the bat. You will always find too many studies. Ill stick with what thousands of successfull bodybuilders have been doing, what all the so called Bodybuilders who write manuals - Studies are typically flawed and biased in every field. When the day comes and you show me thousands of adults between 30 -50 exersicizing and weightlifting for a spell, then youmay have something to write about

I agree that many studies are flawed and are influenced by those paying for them. With that said, what could the ulterior motives be for finding the efficacy of different GH administration techniques on human beings. Speaking of human beings, this study was done on humans. Not rats, not mice, not cultures in a lab, but human beings. The fact that they were children does not make the study less reliable in terms of absorption times. To the best of my knowledge, a 10 year old has skin and muscles just like a 30 year old, so the study IS relevant.

did i use the words ,"half life"?? Im actually trying to say it so one that has no idea what that means, but you and i actually are saying the same thing. Id like you to read what osiris stated too- igf conversion means - sorry charlie , starkist wants tuna that taste good

Not sure what you are saying here....? Absorption time and half-life are directly related, so the fact that you were debating absorption time and I posted studies citing half-lives does not mean that we were not debating the same thing, and it certainly doesn't mean that we are saying the same thing. Interestingly enough, the second study in my post touched on igf conversion before osiris made his first post, so I'm aware of what some of the studies show, and also aware of the bro-logic being spread. I like tuna too?

 

[SAD]

SAD, if you are taking gh that you think is going to possibly cause an infection, switch brands=-) There are great antibiotics that can fight infections in the skin and the muscle very easily. The real danger with gh comes into play with the endotoxins from poorly manufactured gh.

DO you guys wnat to know why insulin is present in some gh?

I very briefly touched on the whole "subq being safer than IM with regards to infection" thing, and I should have been more clear. ANY injection into the body, even if you are injecting pure BW, carries the risk of infection. I was not implying that I was paranoid of my GH being impure, but rather that an infection (no matter how it is caused, no matter how sterile or careful you are it can still happen) is more serious when it is in the muscle rather than subcutaneous.

Yes (I would like to know why insulin is present in some GH).

these are not factual statements, there are studies too numerous to count, there is around a 10% greater absorbtion and much faster clearance time im over subq.

We can agree to disagree though, i am still learning every single day

Instead of agreeing to disagree, I would rather learn why my statements (and the plethora of studies backing them) are not factual. I am not so arrogant to be above being proved wrong and I actually welcome the opportunity to learn more, but you have your work cut out for you, because there are NUMEROUS studies done by both GH manufacturers and third parties alike that show subq absorbs slightly quicker (slightly shorter half-life) than IM. For instances like this, I tend to lean heavily on studies because I know for a FACT that I can't tell the difference between 75% absorption and 80%, or between a half-life of 3.5 hours and 4 hours. As I stated already, I have pinned GH both subq and IM and I couldn't tell a bit of difference. Now that I think about it, since I couldn't tell a difference, I'm not sure why I even care which way does what because FOR ME PERSONALLY, it makes no difference. But now that I am this far in, I'd like to hear/see/read proof of the opposite and then determine if we will continue to agree to disagree or if we will agree after all .

 

[Shovel]

What he said^^^. I was under the impression sc is quicker than im, but also doesn't matter to me PERSONALLY.

 

[osiris]

I very briefly touched on the whole "subq being safer than IM with regards to infection" thing, and I should have been more clear. ANY injection into the body, even if you are injecting pure BW, carries the risk of infection. I was not implying that I was paranoid of my GH being impure, but rather that an infection (no matter how it is caused, no matter how sterile or careful you are it can still happen) is more serious when it is in the muscle rather than subcutaneous.

Yes (I would like to know why insulin is present in some GH).




Instead of agreeing to disagree, I would rather learn why my statements (and the plethora of studies backing them) are not factual. I am not so arrogant to be above being proved wrong and I actually welcome the opportunity to learn more, but you have your work cut out for you, because there are NUMEROUS studies done by both GH manufacturers and third parties alike that show subq absorbs slightly quicker (slightly shorter half-life) than IM. For instances like this, I tend to lean heavily on studies because I know for a FACT that I can't tell the difference between 75% absorption and 80%, or between a half-life of 3.5 hours and 4 hours. As I stated already, I have pinned GH both subq and IM and I couldn't tell a bit of difference. Now that I think about it, since I couldn't tell a difference, I'm not sure why I even care which way does what because FOR ME PERSONALLY, it makes no difference. But now that I am this far in, I'd like to hear/see/read proof of the opposite and then determine if we will continue to agree to disagree or if we will agree after all .

You take insulin right SAD? Let me ask you to conduct and experiment, take your insulin IM and then SUBQ and tell me which hits faster=-) Do i really need to find studies that tell you that injecting into tissue with greater blood flow is going to have greater absorbtion than injecting into a tissue that has less blood flow and is not near as porous.

So i can find studies i guess, but would you inject 10iu of insulin IM? And if not why wouldn't you? Because you cant control the onset. There is a time where we need to read the studies and then think through the whole situation=-) The rules of absorbtion didnt change just for gh.

not being a smart ass, just using common sense because i am at work and i cant find a million articles on it while coding our new bill pay screen=-)

 

[osiris]

I very briefly touched on the whole "subq being safer than IM with regards to infection" thing, and I should have been more clear. ANY injection into the body, even if you are injecting pure BW, carries the risk of infection. I was not implying that I was paranoid of my GH being impure, but rather that an infection (no matter how it is caused, no matter how sterile or careful you are it can still happen) is more serious when it is in the muscle rather than subcutaneous.

Yes (I would like to know why insulin is present in some GH).




Instead of agreeing to disagree, I would rather learn why my statements (and the plethora of studies backing them) are not factual. I am not so arrogant to be above being proved wrong and I actually welcome the opportunity to learn more, but you have your work cut out for you, because there are NUMEROUS studies done by both GH manufacturers and third parties alike that show subq absorbs slightly quicker (slightly shorter half-life) than IM. For instances like this, I tend to lean heavily on studies because I know for a FACT that I can't tell the difference between 75% absorption and 80%, or between a half-life of 3.5 hours and 4 hours. As I stated already, I have pinned GH both subq and IM and I couldn't tell a bit of difference. Now that I think about it, since I couldn't tell a difference, I'm not sure why I even care which way does what because FOR ME PERSONALLY, it makes no difference. But now that I am this far in, I'd like to hear/see/read proof of the opposite and then determine if we will continue to agree to disagree or if we will agree after all .

Also, im gives local igf expression, think site growth and sub q most certainly does not. BUT subq gives a release of FFA's at the injection site. You have to know when to use each method to meet your goals.

O

 

[SAD]

You take insulin right SAD? Let me ask you to conduct and experiment, take your insulin IM and then SUBQ and tell me which hits faster=-) Do i really need to find studies that tell you that injecting into tissue with greater blood flow is going to have greater absorbtion than injecting into a tissue that has less blood flow and is not near as porous.

So i can find studies i guess, but would you inject 10iu of insulin IM? And if not why wouldn't you? Because you cant control the onset. There is a time where we need to read the studies and then think through the whole situation=-) The rules of absorbtion didnt change just for gh.

not being a smart ass, just using common sense because i am at work and i cant find a million articles on it while coding our new bill pay screen=-)

Whenever you have the time, I would appreciate those studies. The strange thing is, that most aqueous solutions DO absorb more quickly IM than subq, and insulin is absolutely one of those compounds that will hit harder and faster IM vs. subq. However, for whatever reason, GH doesn't follow that mold. If the studies I've already posted aren't enough, I'll also try to find the time later to post some more. I remember one yesterday that I came across that specifically talked about how GH flies in the face of other aqueous solutions in terms of absorption time/injection site.


EDIT : I have been doing research for you O, trying to find any studies that show GH (not other hormones or vaccines) absorbs faster IM, and I seriously can't find any. If you have the time, as you are researching, tell me that you don't come across a shitload of studies showing that GH (not other hormones or vaccines) absorbs faster subq. It's weird, but I think you will find plenty of evidence backing me.