Scrap the Six Month Cycle Concept For GH

[MMA]

i've really been researching it, and i think the "6 month cycle" so many people recomend for GH is the wrong way to think about it.

if it's really six months before you even see serious results, what are you going to do, one 6 month cycle every year? every 2 years?

i think GH should be more of a lifestyle choice. once you get to where you can afford it, you should probably just stay on at least 9 months a year for the rest of your life (9 months is about a year of 5 days on 2 days off). and since long cycles are so much more effective than short cycles, and even very small doses can make a big difference, just decide how much you can afford, and just stay on for the rest of your life. at 2.50 an IU (and you can get it cheaper), 4 IU a day is only $10 a day. thats giving up 2 lattes at starbucks. the numbers look intimidating when you look at the cost of a 6 month cycle, but most of us could probably find $10.00 a day for something this important. even 2 IU ($5 a day) would make a huge difference over the course of a few years. and with almost no sides at that dose.

and i've been using IGF1lr3 so far instead of GH because i think it has a better "bang for buck" than GH. igf1lr3 (current conventional wisdom) requires about time on=time off. it also runs abut $10 a day for a reasonable dose. so budget 6 months a year of igflr3 before trying GH (if the gf is more cost efficient for your goals). you could also run a lower dose of GH during the IGF cycles, sort of a "replacement dose" for GH

i'm finally in a financial situation to do this and i'm trying to figure out the best way to do it.

month on month off IGF cycles (why test the "5 week limit" and risk blunting the effect) give you the flexibilty to match your IGF cycles to the peak and PCT periods of your AAS cycles.

5 days on 2 days off for GH doesn't make any sense when you're running it concurrently with IGF, which is also supressive to GH. consistently cycling together would probably look like "6 weeks on, 2 weeks off" for GH, allowing 2 weeks of natural GH production every 2 months (the GH "off weeks" have to be during the IGF "off month"). this pattern wil result in 9 months of GH per year, with no lengthy breaks in GH treatment.

i was also considering only running the IGF during my AAS cycles, and the first 2 weeks of PCT. this would probably result in about 4 months/year of IGF, and 9 months/year of GH.

please note that i'm NOT suggesting a 4 month IGF cycle, it's a series of 4 week and 2 week cycles adding up to 4 months a year.

"life is a journey, not a destination"

anyone else have any suggestions or critiques? i'm planning to start my never ending GH cycle after a few more months of research.

[MMA]

someone on another board (possibly red baron) had an ingenious method of working his t3 into his GH/IGF cycles. anyone remeber that article or have the link? what are the top GH/IGF boards for research?

[Osiris]

Have been studying in here bros hisotries on GH and medical issues.
Came to conclusion, 1 IU daily, no on/off, lifelong, half-yealry cancer risk test, monthly blood work for BG and general blood picture.

Reason: tall and low BF people, who are around us, have much higher GH blood levels lifelong. They also statisticaly live longer than common short or regular pepole.
Why not maintain lifelong GH replacement theraphy with small off periods to keep pituary alive?

Hereby I seek common thinkers, who find this idea reasonable.

Lets group and share our own separate experience with others.

I think we can run together very important life test for longevity together.

[email protected]
Dmitry

[MMA]

even 1 iu a day has made a big difference for some people. how would you schedule your on/off periods? taking a week or 2 off every couple of months would be unlikely to noticably hurt your gains, and there could be real health benfits to even briefly restoring endo production. at the very least it wil save money

[MMA]

i was also going to "jumpstart" my GH with an IGF cycle.

[wilthepill123]

First of all IGF-1 is why people take GH. GH IS THE PRECURSOR TO IGF-1. You also seem to be ignoring the most important reasons people take GH. GH causes hyperplasia and hypertrophy plus it has an anabolic effect on tendons, cartilage and other connective tissue. It is THE genetic equalizer that is behind modern bodybuilders. Eventually GH is going to have to make way for PGF's, More effective growth factors (DES(1-3) IGF-1 for example), Interleukin 15 amd other non AAS growth factors, but not any time soon.

A never ending GH cycle is ridiculous, you're looking at kidney and heart enlargement, high blood pressure, diabetes, thyroid hormone deficiency, and acromegaly not to mention others. Unless you are aiming to become the next Ronnie Coleman, you need to rethink your decisions and change them so they are more geared for a healthier longer life. The last thing you want to be is ripped with a huge GH belly.

Your IGF-1 plan sounds reasonable. Your HGH plan is silly, and your argument on the monetary implications of GH is ridiculous. Its not like you have to pull 10 dollars out of your wallet every day. More like you have to shell out oh lets see:

If you want to buy a 3 month supply of GH

10 bucks a day, 90 days in this supply, thats 900 bucks to shell out all at once. Most people have trouble affording this alone. Now you're saying in a ten year period you're going to drop 35,000 on GH? Thats alot of money amigo, some of us cant throw down dough like that, nor do we want to. Bodybuilding is a hobby and a passion for me, but i have other interests in dropping 900 bucks every three months for GH isnt what i want to spend my hard earned money on.

Also IGF-1 isnt "suppressive" to GH as you implicated it to be. IGF-1 will suppress ENDOGENOUS GH levels, the GH YOU produce, it wont have any effect on your EXOGENOUS GH. Now your liver has a limited capacity to convert excess GH into IGF-1 UNLESS you chemically elevate other hormone levels. Enter Insulin and Cytomel (T3), but thats another tale for another day. You have some good ideas but some are definitely taken out of context.

[MMA]

First of all IGF-1 is why people take GH. GH IS THE PRECURSOR TO IGF-1.

i'm quite aware of this. however, it's not really practical to take enough GH to reach optimum levels of IGF1.

You also seem to be ignoring the most important reasons people take GH. GH causes hyperplasia and hypertrophy plus it has an anabolic effect on tendons, cartilage and other connective tissue. It is THE genetic equalizer that is behind modern bodybuilders. Eventually GH is going to have to make way for PGF's, More effective growth factors (DES(1-3) IGF-1 for example), Interleukin 15 amd other non AAS growth factors, but not any time soon.

where did that come from? that's exactly why i was taking it. why else would i take it?

A never ending GH cycle is ridiculous, you're looking at kidney and heart enlargement, high blood pressure, diabetes, thyroid hormone deficiency, and acromegaly not to mention others. Unless you are aiming to become the next Ronnie Coleman, you need to rethink your decisions and change them so they are more geared for a healthier longer life. The last thing you want to be is ripped with a huge GH belly.

a never ending GH cycle is the basis of many HRT programs, and has been shown by doctors to have many health benefits. if you told an HRT doc you intended to continually interrupt his HRT therapy (cycling), he would say it was a bad idea.

Your IGF-1 plan sounds reasonable. Your HGH plan is silly, and your argument on the monetary implications of GH is ridiculous. Its not like you have to pull 10 dollars out of your wallet every day. More like you have to shell out oh lets see:

If you want to buy a 3 month supply of GH

10 bucks a day, 90 days in this supply, thats 900 bucks to shell out all at once. Most people have trouble affording this alone. Now you're saying in a ten year period you're going to drop 35,000 on GH? Thats alot of money amigo, some of us cant throw down dough like that, nor do we want to. Bodybuilding is a hobby and a passion for me, but i have other interests in dropping 900 bucks every three months for GH isnt what i want to spend my hard earned money on.

i realize that it's not what you want to do. but it is what i want to do. i'm not judging your goals, don't judge mine. i specificly stated this was for those who had the means and the money. financially, this is about the difference between driving a really hot car, or having a car that gets you from place to place. and to me, it's not what kind of car i drive, it's the size of the arm hanging out the window!

as far as coming up with the money, it's basic fiscal discipline, and can be applied to any part of your life. if you need to save $3,500, make a budget of how you spend your money. if you can eliminate $10.00 a day in expenses (which could be as simple as brown bagging your meals instead of eating out) you will have more than enough.

it just requires discipline. a dollar today is a dollar tomorrow. if you reduce your other expenditures by $10.00 a day, you'll accumulate $3,650.00 within a year.

Also IGF-1 isnt "suppressive" to GH as you implicated it to be. IGF-1 will suppress ENDOGENOUS GH levels, the GH YOU produce, it wont have any effect on your EXOGENOUS GH.

of course not, i never said it did. this is exactly the reason i was cycling it the way i was. i never said anything about it being suppressive to exo gh, the terms don't even make sense that way. the whole point of matching your IGF "off period" to your GH "off period" was that otherwise there would be no benefit to the GH off period. understand now?

Now your liver has a limited capacity to convert excess GH into IGF-1 UNLESS you chemically elevate other hormone levels. Enter Insulin and Cytomel (T3)

yes these are the classic hormones to stack with GH. i already made a second post about stacking it with t3. the insulin also stacks powerfully (but very dangerously) with the IGF. these are topics and themselves, and i was going to explain them to you later

but thats another tale for another day.

my thoughts as well, it was a long post already, i was going to hash out the other details later

You have some good ideas but some are definitely taken out of context.

thanks for the constructive criticism, i'll try to communicate my ideas more clearly in the future

Your IGF-1 plan sounds reasonable. Your HGH plan is silly, and your argument on the monetary implications of GH is ridiculous. Its not like you have to pull 10 dollars out of your wallet every day. More like you have to shell out oh lets see:

If you want to buy a 3 month supply of GH

10 bucks a day, 90 days in this supply, thats 900 bucks to shell out all at once. Most people have trouble affording this alone. Now you're saying in a ten year period you're going to drop 35,000 on GH? Thats alot of money amigo, some of us cant throw down dough like that, nor do we want to. Bodybuilding is a hobby and a passion for me, but i have other interests in dropping 900 bucks every three months for GH isnt what i want to spend my hard earned money on.

i hope that didn't come out too harshly, i'm not here to burn anybody. but it gets to me when people get so judgemental about what another person values. EVERYBODY on this board is considered a crazy, incredibly vain or lazy drug addict by the general population for the risks we're willing to take to achieve our goals. different people have diiferent goals and values, there is no reason to $hit on someone elses goals and values because ours are slightly different. especially on a board like this.

the thread was specificy for those who wanted to use GH efficiently, it wasn't supposed to be a referendum on whether spending money on GH was worth it, or if you should spend it on other hobbies. if you want to discuss that, feel free to start your own thread

[***xxx***]

if you told an HRT doc you intended to continually interrupt his HRT therapy (cycling), he would say it was a bad idea.

it s still not proven that hrt is healthy. it helps reducing problems in the short run but nobody knows about the risks it produces in the long run. decreasing hormone level in the older ages make sense: it lowers the risk of cancer. I ve posted 2 studies a week or two ago proving that a low gh level reduces the cancer risk enormously.

[MMA]

it s still not proven that hrt is healthy. it helps reducing problems in the short run but nobody knows about the risks it produces in the long run. decreasing hormone level in the older ages make sense: it lowers the risk of cancer. I ve posted 2 studies a week or two ago proving that a low gh level reduces the cancer risk enormously.

quality of life is a huge factor for many. i would rather feel like i was 25 till i was 60 and then die, than hang on to a miserable quality of life until 75

[***xxx***]

I dunno, dying of cancer aged 60 is not one of my favourites

[goldenFloyd]

if your main purpose is longevity... kurzweil has an interesting take on things - he predicts that the convergence of biology and technology has reached a critical mass whereby innovations in the next 20 years will result in accelerated rates of advancement in medicine... such that his prediction is if you can make it to 2020, they will have a way to sustain you until 2040 and by that point... forever? Sounds crazy, but he did call the global human network before the internet reached critical mass back in 90 or so.

anyway, to make this relevant, hopefully cancer will be solved with nanotechnology that can excise it at the cellular level and both max and triple x won't have to worry about it :P

[MMA]

I dunno, dying of cancer aged 60 is not one of my favourites

me neither.

a good point, but still a hypothetical one. it hasn't been conclusively proven to be more healthy. or less healthy.

but it has been shown to dramaticly increase quality of life in some people. all other things being equal, i would rather look and feel great.

[MMA]

if your main purpose is longevity... kurzweil has an interesting take on things - he predicts that the convergence of biology and technology has reached a critical mass whereby innovations in the next 20 years will result in accelerated rates of advancement in medicine... such that his prediction is if you can make it to 2020, they will have a way to sustain you until 2040 and by that point... forever? Sounds crazy, but he did call the global human network before the internet reached critical mass back in 90 or so.

anyway, to make this relevant, hopefully cancer will be solved with nanotechnology that can excise it at the cellular level and both max and triple x won't have to worry about it :P

it's not crazy at all, it's logical and inevitable. eventually, there will be a generation that is effectively immortal. with a few key medical breakthroughs, we might even be that generation. but probably not, especialy with the religious right hitting the stem cell research so hard. stem cell research = cure for everything, including age itself.

[***xxx***]

I dunno, cancer is a well known desease - still we have no cure. just take aids, we are not even close to a cure or a vaccine. I beleive that there will be progress but not that medicine will become omnipotent.

[MMA]

First of all IGF-1 is why people take GH. GH IS THE PRECURSOR TO IGF-1.

i'm quite aware of this. however, it's not really practical to take enough GH to reach optimum levels of IGF1.

You also seem to be ignoring the most important reasons people take GH. GH causes hyperplasia and hypertrophy plus it has an anabolic effect on tendons, cartilage and other connective tissue. It is THE genetic equalizer that is behind modern bodybuilders. Eventually GH is going to have to make way for PGF's, More effective growth factors (DES(1-3) IGF-1 for example), Interleukin 15 amd other non AAS growth factors, but not any time soon.

where did that come from? that's exactly why i was taking it. why else would i take it?

A never ending GH cycle is ridiculous, you're looking at kidney and heart enlargement, high blood pressure, diabetes, thyroid hormone deficiency, and acromegaly not to mention others. Unless you are aiming to become the next Ronnie Coleman, you need to rethink your decisions and change them so they are more geared for a healthier longer life. The last thing you want to be is ripped with a huge GH belly.

a never ending GH cycle is the basis of many HRT programs, and has been shown by doctors to have many health benefits. if you told an HRT doc you intended to continually interrupt his HRT therapy (cycling), he would say it was a bad idea.

Your IGF-1 plan sounds reasonable. Your HGH plan is silly, and your argument on the monetary implications of GH is ridiculous. Its not like you have to pull 10 dollars out of your wallet every day. More like you have to shell out oh lets see:

If you want to buy a 3 month supply of GH

10 bucks a day, 90 days in this supply, thats 900 bucks to shell out all at once. Most people have trouble affording this alone. Now you're saying in a ten year period you're going to drop 35,000 on GH? Thats alot of money amigo, some of us cant throw down dough like that, nor do we want to. Bodybuilding is a hobby and a passion for me, but i have other interests in dropping 900 bucks every three months for GH isnt what i want to spend my hard earned money on.

i realize that it's not what you want to do. but it is what i want to do. i'm not judging your goals, don't judge mine. i specificly stated this was for those who had the means and the money. financially, this is about the difference between driving a really hot car, or having a car that gets you from place to place. and to me, it's not what kind of car i drive, it's the size of the arm hanging out the window!

as far as coming up with the money, it's basic fiscal discipline, and can be applied to any part of your life. if you need to save $3,500, make a budget of how you spend your money. if you can eliminate $10.00 a day in expenses (which could be as simple as brown bagging your meals instead of eating out) you will have more than enough.

it just requires discipline. a dollar today is a dollar tomorrow. if you reduce your other expenditures by $10.00 a day, you'll accumulate $3,650.00 within a year.

Also IGF-1 isnt "suppressive" to GH as you implicated it to be. IGF-1 will suppress ENDOGENOUS GH levels, the GH YOU produce, it wont have any effect on your EXOGENOUS GH.

of course not, i never said it did. this is exactly the reason i was cycling it the way i was. i never said anything about it being suppressive to exo gh, the terms don't even make sense that way. the whole point of matching your IGF "off period" to your GH "off period" was that otherwise there would be no benefit to the GH off period. understand now?

Now your liver has a limited capacity to convert excess GH into IGF-1 UNLESS you chemically elevate other hormone levels. Enter Insulin and Cytomel (T3)

yes these are the classic hormones to stack with GH. i already made a second post about stacking it with t3. the insulin also stacks powerfully (but very dangerously) with the IGF. these are topics and themselves, and i was going to explain them to you later

but thats another tale for another day.

my thoughts as well, it was a long post already, i was going to hash out the other details later

You have some good ideas but some are definitely taken out of context.

thanks for the constructive criticism, i'll try to communicate my ideas more clearly in the future

Your IGF-1 plan sounds reasonable. Your HGH plan is silly, and your argument on the monetary implications of GH is ridiculous. Its not like you have to pull 10 dollars out of your wallet every day. More like you have to shell out oh lets see:

If you want to buy a 3 month supply of GH

10 bucks a day, 90 days in this supply, thats 900 bucks to shell out all at once. Most people have trouble affording this alone. Now you're saying in a ten year period you're going to drop 35,000 on GH? Thats alot of money amigo, some of us cant throw down dough like that, nor do we want to. Bodybuilding is a hobby and a passion for me, but i have other interests in dropping 900 bucks every three months for GH isnt what i want to spend my hard earned money on.

i hope that didn't come out too harshly, i'm not here to burn anybody. but it gets to me when people get so judgemental about what another person values. EVERYBODY on this board is considered a crazy, incredibly vain or lazy drug addict by the general population for the risks we're willing to take to achieve our goals. different people have diiferent goals and values, there is no reason to $hit on someone elses goals and values because ours are slightly different. especially on a board like this.

the thread was specificy for those who wanted to use GH efficiently, it wasn't supposed to be a referendum on whether spending money on GH was worth it, or if you should spend it on other hobbies. if you want to discuss that, feel free to start your own thread

[MMA]

I dunno, cancer is a well known desease - still we have no cure. just take aids, we are not even close to a cure or a vaccine. I beleive that there will be progress but not that medicine will become omnipotent.

cancer is actually a thousand or so different diseases that are closely related. and we cure cancer every day, and keep getting better at it. someday we will win

[***xxx***]

cancer is actually a thousand or so different diseases that are closely related. and we cure cancer every day, and keep getting better at it. someday we will win

I hope so bro, I hope so.

[MMA]

the reason i think this makes sense is because so many people have talked about how worthless short cycles of GH are. the concept of cycling is something that comes from avoiding certain AAS side effects. the whole concept of cycling as we know it may be simply inapplicable to GH. maybe take a little time off here and there, just to be safe, but we've got to start thinking outside the box. instead of "how long should i stay on", we should be asking "how long do we need to stay off?"

another key factor - i've heard very substantial effects in even tiny doses (miniquicks!), if used over long periods of time. especially with older athletes. maybe GH wasn't the super expensive drug we thought it was, maybe we just didn't know how to use it properly back then. some people have reported substantial benefits at one IU a day, if taken long enough.

the combination of these 2 factors may change the question from "how long" into simply "how much?"

instead of doing "GH cycles", we should decide if we're a 2 IU man, or a 4 IU man.

[j martini]

I live in the uk and the cheapest i have seen GH here is equivilant to about $5 an iu. But usually its about $8 an iu if i was getting it for whay you guys in the states are getting it for then i could afford to use it.
But i think i would have to turn to prostitution at the current prices.

[***xxx***]

I live in the uk and the cheapest i have seen GH here is equivilant to about $5 an iu. But usually its about $8 an iu if i was getting it for whay you guys in the states are getting it for then i could afford to use it.
But i think i would have to turn to prostitution at the current prices.

well may be u will find some customer here

u can get ur gh for 3$ per iu, also in the uk, u just have to look in the right places...

[JohnnyB]

I dunno, dying of cancer aged 60 is not one of my favourites

Cancer from HGH, LR3 or AAS happens if you already have cancer cells, it doesn't cause cancer, it will accelerate it if you already have it.

JohnnyB

[***xxx***]

Cancer from HGH, LR3 or AAS happens if you already have cancer cells, it doesn't cause cancer, it will accelerate it if you already have it.

JohnnyB

I know still the risk of getting cancer with a high or higher gh level is definately higher than with low or lower gh levels.

[*Narkissos*]

Reason: tall and low BF people, who are around us, have much higher GH blood levels lifelong. They also statisticaly live longer than common short or regular pepole.

This whole thread holds interesting perspectives... I fear there is some misinformation tho:

Like the tall/short analogy. It is proven (using Asiatic races as an example) that shorter people live longer... The low bodyfat/extended life expectancy connection is proven tho....The aformentioned Asiatic races (chinese etc) being the basis of said studies.

[***xxx***]

This whole thread holds interesting perspectives... I fear there is some misinformation tho:

Like the tall/short analogy. It is proven (using Asiatic races as an example) that shorter people live longer... The low bodyfat/extended life expectancy connection is proven tho....The aformentioned Asiatic races (chinese etc) being the basis of said studies.

wrong:

Tall people live longer


By DPA
Published on 2001-06-21

BRISTOL — Down the ages, tall people have been able to look forward to a longer life than shorter people, according to a study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

British researchers found the link between body size and longevity after studying ancient human bones in a cemetery.

Although scientists cannot explain this phenomenon, they believe genetics matter. Moreover, they suspect that health and nutrition, both in the womb and during childhood, are significant factors.

[Osiris]

Im sure that in da labs the tests are running for 1 single pill, which will contain all hormones, produced by the body in proper ratio (which they are trying now to find) and in years we'll be deleteing most of our pituaries and glands after puberty and start full HRT let say since 25 years old boys and 21 years old girls.

I'm sure we will.

[*Narkissos*]

wrong:

Tall people live longer


By DPA
Published on 2001-06-21

BRISTOL — Down the ages, tall people have been able to look forward to a longer life than shorter people, according to a study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

British researchers found the link between body size and longevity after studying ancient human bones in a cemetery.

Although scientists cannot explain this phenomenon, they believe genetics matter. Moreover, they suspect that health and nutrition, both in the womb and during childhood, are significant factors.

You can't just say "Wrong" and drop 1 study:

2. Samaras TT; Elrick H.
Height, body size and longevity.
Acta Medica Okayama, 1999 Aug, 53(4):149-69.
Pub type: JOURNAL ARTICLE; REVIEW; REVIEW, TUTORIAL.
(UI: 99418026)

Abstract: Life expectancy, mortality and longevity data related to height and
body size for various US and world population samples are reviewed.
Research on energy restriction, smaller body size and longevity is also
examined. Information sources include various medical and scientific
journals, books and personal communications with researchers. Additional
information is presented based on research involving eight populations of
the world noted for their health, vigor and longevity. This information
includes the findings of one of the authors who led research teams to study
these populations. While conflicting findings exist on the cardiovascular
death rates for shorter people, many examples of short populations with
very little heart disease are described. Most cancer studies indicate that
shorter people have significantly lower mortality risk. Considerable data
suggest that shorter people generally have greater longevity than taller
people, and extensive animal research supports human longevity findings.
Tall populations with low mortality rates are also described. Shorter
stature and smaller body weight appear to promote better health and
longevity in the absence of malnutrition and infectious diseases. Several
theoretical reasons for this greater longevity potential are covered. Also
discussed, is the role of socioeconomic status, diet, relative weight,
environment and other factors in increasing or decreasing the longevity of
individuals, regardless of their heights and weights.

[Mighty]

I dunno, cancer is a well known desease - still we have no cure. just take aids, we are not even close to a cure or a vaccine. I beleive that there will be progress but not that medicine will become omnipotent.

I just read an article the other day about an AIDS vaccine. They are pushing it through the FDA for testing on chimps, and say the Vaccine may be as early as 4 years away.

[goldenFloyd]

it is a fact that the progress in medicine has increased exponentially only recently if viewed within the context of human history. Kurweil's theories propose that this exponential increase is only the "tip of the iceberg" with the true acceleration coming in the next 20-40 years. i believe it. Cornell University is a leader in nanotechnology and some of the research my classmates were producing had ridiculous implications for the future of biotech. also, stem cells and embryonic stem cell research are two different things. Most religious right are against the latter.

Economically, innovation has only had an productivity impact when it has become widespread. Electricity and the automobile are great examples of past innovations that did not change the world overnight. Instead, it was by their dissemenation among the masses that allowed people to innovate and create new growth in productivity and ultimately new products. The unique thing about technology is that never before has an innovation a) dropped in price so quickly and b) been adopted so quickly. The fact that computing power is so affordable and widespread (this board is a great example) translates into real productivity gains in the sectors that employ it - one of the biggest being biomedical research. We are at the very beginning of technological innovations that will allow other innovations to come about more quickly and medicine will be one of the biggest examples of this.

This isn't to say that there won't be some serious obstacles... apologies for getting off topic.