Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 36 of 36
  1. #1
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883

    Putting An End to the GH EOD Nonsense

    a study came out comparing EOD GH injections to ED. people have been running around acting like it's the new holy grail of GH use, dramaticly superior to previous methods.

    unfortunately, they competely misread the study, which if read properly shows the exact opposite, that the ED injections were more effective.


    "Group I receiving the daily hGH injections first & second year velocity was 3.4 and 2.3 SD Group II receiving the alternate hGH inj. had 3.0 and 2.0 SD for first and second year respectively."


    daily injections clearly had a stronger effect than EOD. the drop off came AFTER they stopped dosing. the other group was doing DAILY injections, not the standard 5-2 we use. not surprisingly, they either ruined their endogenous GH production or became insensitive to it. i would rather be on GH 10 days out of 14, than be on 7 days out of 14. 5 on 2 off also has a proven safety record, there is no need to go all the way down to 1 on, 1 off.

    hope this clears up the issue

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    In the long run, EOD is much more beneficial, when cessation of therapy is taken into account.

  3. #3
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    In the long run, EOD is much more beneficial, when cessation of therapy is taken into account.
    remember, the study was for long term ED vs. long term EOD. we don't use long term ED, we use 5 on 2 off, which peserves endogenous production after cessation of therapy, avoiding the problems cited in the study.

    why be off for 7 days out of 14 (with a documented weaker effect) when being off 4 days out of 14 would accomplish the same thing?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    How do we know that 5/2 does that? Do you have a study showing that? The researchers speculated that the 1/1 nature replicated the natural GH pulses that the body produced, and thus we are able to recover more quickly from it.

    I don't know that 5/2 does the same thing...I read that Duchaine said that 5/2 replicated the pattern of GH pulses during Adolescence, but I can't find that documented adequately.

    I can not find evidence for 5/2 being equal to 1/1 anywhere.

  5. #5
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    How do we know that 5/2 does that? Do you have a study showing that? The researchers speculated that the 1/1 nature replicated the natural GH pulses that the body produced, and thus we are able to recover more quickly from it.

    I don't know that 5/2 does the same thing...I read that Duchaine said that 5/2 replicated the pattern of GH pulses during Adolescence, but I can't find that documented adequately.

    I can not find evidence for 5/2 being equal to 1/1 anywhere.
    good point, i don't know how strong the basis for the 5/2 standard is.

    but i think the study is very weak and flawed for our purposes anyway. it was a very small study (38 people), involving people with health problems, not athletes, and used 2 years of a dosing schedule that had obvious problems. this is hardly a surprise, anyone on this forum could have predicted problems with their endogenous GH production after 2 years of ED use. we already had a protocol in place to deal with this problem (tho we're not quite sure how effective it is).

    if 5/2 does address this issue, the one thing the study does establish is that more frequent injections (involving the same total weekly IUs) are more powerful than EOD.

    "Group I receiving the daily hGH injections first & second year velocity was 3.4 and 2.3 SD Group II receiving the alternate hGH inj. had 3.0 and 2.0 SD for first and second year respectively."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    The people in the study were short. That was their health problem

    The study was big enough to be relevant.

    Usually studies don't involve healthy people. Why test drugs on healthy people?
    Most of the good research on anabolics comes from research on people with wasting diseases, not healthy people.

    What is the 5/2 protocol based on? Why not 1/2, 1/3, 3/4, etc...? It's too random for my liking.

    Remember, there is no evidence anywhere that 5/2 is based in any kind of science, other than Dan Duchaine's word. More frequent injections are ONLY more effective in the short run, and may cause future inhibition of GH secretion. I kn ow that in a long run vs. short run choice, I will take the long term benefits.

  7. #7
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    The people in the study were short. That was their health problem

    The study was big enough to be relevant.

    Usually studies don't involve healthy people. Why test drugs on healthy people?
    Most of the good research on anabolics comes from research on people with wasting diseases, not healthy people.

    What is the 5/2 protocol based on? Why not 1/2, 1/3, 3/4, etc...? It's too random for my liking.

    Remember, there is no evidence anywhere that 5/2 is based in any kind of science, other than Dan Duchaine's word. More frequent injections are ONLY more effective in the short run, and may cause future inhibition of GH secretion. I kn ow that in a long run vs. short run choice, I will take the long term benefits.
    you raise some valid points, and further review of the study shows your position was somewhat stronger than i had originally thought.

    however, even the doctors who performed the study didn't think their results were conclusive

    "This paper suggests, but cannot prove, that alternate day therapy is superior if one chooses to treat children with idiopathic short stature over a prepubertal window of 2 yr. "

    and in defense of 5/2, aren't many HRT docs prescribing it that way? thats a lot of medical doctors using that dosage as part of their regimen, not just dan duchaine.
    Last edited by MMA; 05-12-2005 at 05:11 PM.

  8. #8
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    it was a very interesting study in a lot of other ways too. my biggest surprise was that after 2 years of ED use, gh levels were the same as pre treatment.

    they referenced another study that showed normal GH levels 24 hours after a year long treatment.

    this just underscores how different GH is from AS, and how we can't think of it in the same terms as an AS cycle. apparently suppression/pct are complete nonfactors.

    what is a huge factor is apparently tolerance in target tissues. and this wasn't just in the growth plates, it was in every measured category - bodyfat etc.

    even with fully restored GH levels, the same amount of gh simply did not have the same effect for a lengthy period of time. EOD did reduce this tolerance effect somewhat.

    a wealth of info from the referenced/related studies, i'll need to digest this before making new conclusions.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    I think, when you look at the 2 years of post-gh administration, 1/1 is the best idea. I mean...if I were to go on GH for 2 years, I know I wouldn't want to spend the following 2 years wondering if I would now have reduced growth rates had I done things differently.

  10. #10
    johnsomebody's Avatar
    johnsomebody is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,428
    Could you cite the study you're referring to, and/or provide a link?

    " even with fully restored GH levels, the same amount of gh simply did not have the same effect for a lengthy period of time. EOD did reduce this tolerance effect somewhat."

    Does this mean then that using HGH 5/2 for six months is likely to leave one longterm less sensitive to their own HGH? Is it then possibly a zero sum gain longterm?

    Thanks by the way for an informative discussion!

  11. #11
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    I think, when you look at the 2 years of post-gh administration, 1/1 is the best idea. I mean...if I were to go on GH for 2 years, I know I wouldn't want to spend the following 2 years wondering if I would now have reduced growth rates had I done things differently.
    you'll have reduced growth rates regardless, EOD had some tolerance issues as well. it's not "will i get a reduced effect from my gh in future" it's "how much will the effect of my gh be reduced"?

    and the more frequent injections DID have a noticabely stronger effect. i'm trying to figure out a way to get the best of both worlds

  12. #12
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by johnsomebody
    Could you cite the study you're referring to, and/or provide a link?

    " even with fully restored GH levels, the same amount of gh simply did not have the same effect for a lengthy period of time. EOD did reduce this tolerance effect somewhat."

    Does this mean then that using HGH 5/2 for six months is likely to leave one longterm less sensitive to their own HGH? Is it then possibly a zero sum gain longterm?

    Thanks by the way for an informative discussion!
    http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/con...l/87/8/3573#R7

  13. #13
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    i actually find this info very unsettling. GH may have some great effects for a year or 2, but it seems to come with a big price for a long time afterwards. not quite the wonder drug we thought it was. the same problems probably also apply to igf1lr3. serious tolerance seems to come into play within 5 weeks. i wonder how well EOD igf would work?

  14. #14
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    is there any evidence of anything that might restore GH sensitivity, the way way ketotifen restores your sensitivity to clen ?

  15. #15
    spound's Avatar
    spound is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Georgia and Texas
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by MMA
    you'll have reduced growth rates regardless, EOD had some tolerance issues as well. it's not "will i get a reduced effect from my gh in future" it's "how much will the effect of my gh be reduced"?

    and the more frequent injections DID have a noticabely stronger effect. i'm trying to figure out a way to get the best of both worlds
    So if I decided to run GH for 6 months, but then couldnt afford it for another year, I would have trouble growing after that six months??

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by MMA
    it's not "will i get a reduced effect from my gh in future" it's "how much will the effect of my gh be reduced"?
    We don't know if you'll have reduced growth rates. The kids in that study already had reduced growth rates, remember?

    But it was way less so with EOD.


    and the more frequent injections DID have a noticabely stronger effect
    And were more suppressive, leading to less growth for the next 2(!) years when compared with EOD shots...

    i'm trying to figure out a way to get the best of both worlds
    IMHO, 5/2 isn't it...

  17. #17
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    We don't know if you'll have reduced growth rates. The kids in that study already had reduced growth rates, remember?

    But it was way less so with EOD.




    And were more suppressive, leading to less growth for the next 2(!) years when compared with EOD shots...



    IMHO, 5/2 isn't it...
    upon further review of the study, you're probably right. what does this mean for igf1lr3? that shows signicant tolerance buildup within 5 weeks. could igf1lr3 be cyled EOD to avoid this? its effect lasts much longer than a GH shot, you might have to go every 3 rd day. could this allow igf1lr3 to be run for longer cycles, matching your AS cycles?

    also, instead of strictly EOD (another study used 3 times a week), what about coordinating your gh and lr3 shots with your heaviest workout days? usually EOD, but occasionally every 3rd, or ED.

  18. #18
    southsidejuncki is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    South Ga
    Posts
    25
    Great Debate/.

  19. #19
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    alright, the study clearly shows that ED gh is a bad idea (which most of us believed already), because it created a tolerance to GH that made GH dramaticly less effective FOR A YEAR AND A HALF! it does show that ED is more powerful in the short term. it also showed EOD greatly reduced GH tolerance.

    it didn't show that 5/2 didn't have the same benefits as EOD. and more frequent injections were shown to be more powerful than EOD. possibly the best of both worlds. this might be a little to much to hope for tho.

    another problem is that both programs showed weaker results the second year, and very weak results after that. this means that long term GH use would also have to be cyled.
    Last edited by MMA; 05-12-2005 at 08:46 PM.

  20. #20
    johnsomebody's Avatar
    johnsomebody is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by MMA
    i actually find this info very unsettling. GH may have some great effects for a year or 2, but it seems to come with a big price for a long time afterwards. not quite the wonder drug we thought it was.
    "At the end of the 4-yr therapy period, the adult height prediction of the alternate day group was greater than that of the daily group by a mean 6.5 cm (P = 0.06)."
    That's no small amount, over 2.5 inches by my calculation!

    As mentioned, the theory is that supraphysiological doses of HGH cause desensitization to normal levels that lasts for years after discontinuing, despite a return to normal HGH levels. It seems to me the question is if this is true in adults as well as children and in people with normal levels as opposed to subnormal. I can't help thinking that children would be expected to recover faster than adults.
    Last edited by johnsomebody; 05-12-2005 at 08:51 PM.

  21. #21
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    the study specificly references that igf builds tolerance the same way as GH.

    " It is concluded that growth deceleration after withdrawal of hGH therapy in idiopathic short stature is due to tolerance to GH and IGF-I in response to the unphysiological pharmacokinetics of daily-injected hGH and that alternate day therapy allows for an alternate day physiological GH profile, thus preventing tolerance during therapy and growth deceleration thereafter. "

    this is probably the main reason igflr3 becomes so much less effective after 5 weeks. EOD igf1lr3 might allow for much longer igf1lr3 cycles. i've always wanted to run igf1lr3 concurrently the entire length of an AS cycle (and PCT) for maximum synergy. this may make that possible.

  22. #22
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by johnsomebody
    "At the end of the 4-yr therapy period, the adult height prediction of the alternate day group was greater than that of the daily group by a mean 6.5 cm (P = 0.06)."
    That's no small amount, over 2.5 inches by my calculation!

    As mentioned, the theory is that supraphysiological doses of HGH cause desensitization to normal levels that lasts for years after discontinuing, despite a return to normal HGH levels. It seems to me the question is if this is true in adults as well as children and in people with normal levels as opposed to subnormal. I can't help thinking that children would be expected to recover faster than adults.
    and it wasn't just height, they also measured bodyfat, nitrogen balance, and resting cardio output (the $hit we care about) and they were all affected by the GH resistance as well.

  23. #23
    spound's Avatar
    spound is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Georgia and Texas
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by spound
    So if I decided to run GH for 6 months, but then couldnt afford it for another year, I would have trouble growing after that six months when I came off??
    Bump for my question

  24. #24
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    the answer is "we don't know". the study was about people who did 2 years ED or EOD. year 2 had definitley weaker effect, and year 3 and further (in other studies) was much weaker.

    6 months may not be long enough to build up resistance. or maybe it does.

  25. #25
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MMA
    the answer is "we don't know". the study was about people who did 2 years ED or EOD. year 2 had definitley weaker effect, and year 3 and further (in other studies) was much weaker.

    6 months may not be long enough to build up resistance. or maybe it does.
    that was inaccurate. according to the study - you should be fine coming off of GH after up to 2 years...IF you went EOD. if you went ED for 2 years, you're screwed for a year and a half. 5/2? that is what we don't know yet.

  26. #26
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    and GH gets weaker every year, even when used EOD. year 1 is great, year 2 is weaker, year 3 iand further is very weak.

    this is really changing the way i look at GH. hooker, redbaron, what is is the modern gh/igf1lr3 cycling method when used together?

  27. #27
    spound's Avatar
    spound is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Georgia and Texas
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by MMA
    and GH gets weaker every year, even when used EOD. year 1 is great, year 2 is weaker, year 3 iand further is very weak.

    this is really changing the way i look at GH. hooker, redbaron, what is is the modern gh/igf1lr3 cycling method when used together?
    This is very interesting information for me to take into consideration while I am planning the protocal for my first GH run, which hopefully kicks off here in the next few week Thanks

  28. #28
    ArmstrongJones is offline New Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    14
    MMA,

    thanks for the dilegent study on this topic. Very helpful.
    AJ

  29. #29
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    this is not the definitive word yet, and my opinion is changing as i continue to research. red baron's opinion is more optimistic than hookers.

    the study was also limited - few of us go continuously for 2 years at a time. resistance did not kick in for the first year. RB claims continued good results going 5/2 for 6 months, then off for a month or 2.

  30. #30
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    We don't know if you'll have reduced growth rates. The kids in that study already had reduced growth rates, remember?
    they had factored that in already, "normal" was their growth rate rpior to treatment.

  31. #31
    block is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    370
    bump

  32. #32
    NewBreed is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by MMA
    and it wasn't just height, they also measured bodyfat, nitrogen balance, and resting cardio output (the $hit we care about) and they were all affected by the GH resistance as well.
    i´ve read several studies,wherein it has been proven,that 1. extreme stress or exercise induced stress elevates gh-levels despite of exogenous gh-igf injectiond as well as 2. some AAS do.

    What I wonder and assume is that the desensitivation is only related to the growth of the short people and a desenitizatzion is normal beginning with adolescense,otherwise we all would permenantly grow.


    I wouldn´take this study too serious in aspect of doping with gh,although a short pulse of gh is more benificial than a low dose sub-q.


    One study I´ve ssen said something wiht a 5-10day supression after low-high-dose gh therapy,but nothing related with desensitisation.

  33. #33
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MMA
    and it wasn't just height, they also measured bodyfat, nitrogen balance, and resting cardio output (the $hit we care about) and they were all affected by the GH resistance as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by NewBreed
    i´ve read several studies,wherein it has been proven,that 1. extreme stress or exercise induced stress elevates gh-levels despite of exogenous gh-igf injectiond as well as 2. some AAS do.

    What I wonder and assume is that the desensitivation is only related to the growth of the short people and a desenitizatzion is normal beginning with adolescense,otherwise we all would permenantly grow.:
    we stop growing because the epiphyseal growth plates at the ends of your long bones close over in response to estrogen in your system. one reason women are shorter than men. has nothing to do with GH resistance. as noted in the study and by myself, this resistance was acroass the board, for everything that GH does that was measured.



    Quote Originally Posted by NewBreed
    I wouldn´take this study too serious in aspect of doping with gh,although a short pulse of gh is more benificial than a low dose sub-q.


    One study I´ve ssen said something wiht a 5-10day supression after low-high-dose gh therapy,but nothing related with desensitisation.
    suppression is not a big issue with GH, but resistance could be.
    Last edited by MMA; 05-24-2005 at 06:15 PM.

  34. #34
    Deal Me In's Avatar
    Deal Me In is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    539
    MMA,

    First, thank you for all of the information. I understand that according to the study your body becomes resistant to GH injections after a certain period of time (increasing after one year).

    If you take that information and assume that you wouldn't take GH for more then one year what is the length of time you would want to be off in order to prevent or restore your bodies natural receptiveness to GH. I realize that there are no studies out that confirm this but I was wondering what your thoughts or the thoughts of those on here that I have been using for some time.

    I was going to limit my first cycle to 9 months and take 3 off. This was more wild a** guessing then science but I'm wondering if 3 months is long enough.

    Thanks for any info that you can provide.

    mc

  35. #35
    Dj Reversal is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    232
    what would you think of something like this for me..


    2iu ED or 5/2 for the 1st 3 months

    then 3iu EOD for the last 3 months?

  36. #36
    MMA's Avatar
    MMA
    MMA is offline VET
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Deal Me In
    MMA,

    First, thank you for all of the information. I understand that according to the study your body becomes resistant to GH injections after a certain period of time (increasing after one year).

    If you take that information and assume that you wouldn't take GH for more then one year what is the length of time you would want to be off in order to prevent or restore your bodies natural receptiveness to GH. I realize that there are no studies out that confirm this but I was wondering what your thoughts or the thoughts of those on here that I have been using for some time.

    I was going to limit my first cycle to 9 months and take 3 off. This was more wild a** guessing then science but I'm wondering if 3 months is long enough.

    Thanks for any info that you can provide.

    mc

    first, i have to say i'm not the board GH expert. however, Red Baron is, and he does something very similar, and has had good results for a long time. good f*ck'n guess!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •