how does jintropen compare with AS and does jintropen alone promote as much muscle growth as AS.. if so over what time scale would you see the benefits of jintropen?
Printable View
how does jintropen compare with AS and does jintropen alone promote as much muscle growth as AS.. if so over what time scale would you see the benefits of jintropen?
I'm in the same boat as you in our train of thoughts. The price of GH is much higher than AAS, (most of the time). GH usually takes about 2 months to start kicking in for myself.
It's also based on your age and goals too. If you're looking to put on 20lbs dont look at GH alone. If you want quality gains w/ little to no sides then you're talking.
GH as nothing in common with AS really. You inject juice IM, gh sub-q. You can gain 10pounds of muscle with AS in 2months, maybe 2pounds of muscle with gh in 2months. A AS cycle can cost under $200, 1kit of gh can cost $200 which last me about 16days. Best to run gh with AS.
You should say 2 pounds of NEW muscle as that is the major difference. GH can promote new muscle growth where AS will only make existing muscle larger.
exactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by jerseyboy
thanks guys. :aaGreen22
can you go into more depth about that? "New" muscle??
hyperplasia vs hypertrophy
simply stated, the number of muscle fibers you have is essentially fixed (determined by genetics)
by exercizing, e.g. weight training, you can increase the size of the muscle fibers but not the number of fibers
hgh will stimulate the growth of new fibers, which can then increase in size with proper strength training, once you get them, you keep them
this is why the combination of aas with hgh has such a synergistic effect on muscle appearance
hope this help a bit
ronster
growth hormone alone promotes very little muscle growth, however whatever muscle growth you get from it will be "new" muscle fibers, where steroids and training just make the existing ones bigger. Now for some serious muscle growth, stack GH, AAS, and slin and you'll get some great results. However, this is not something a newbie should even consider.
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/article...th-hormone.htm
Here's an article I think you'll find interesting. It compares Gh to testosterone for muscle growth.
quote from article:
"It is just my opinion at the moment that the overall benefit/cost ratio for improving body composition is higher with testosterone than growth hormone. By cost, I mean both the monetary price – testosterone is far cheaper than growth hormone, and the side effect/safety profile – testosterone is safer than high-dose growth hormone use."
keep going guys this can only be good
The key to that quote is that it's just an opinion. You can't compare the two. Swollen existing muscle fiber or NEW muscle fiber that has the potential to grow during a later cycle. It's like comparing apples to oranges. I also don't feel that you need to run huge doses of GH to see new muscle growth so I wouldn't consider sides to be a deciding factor.
That maybe true for some they only need like 2-3iu's to see results. But I'm sorry to say thats not the same for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseyboy
No me either. I think I probably could do just fine with 6-8 if the sides were bearable. I got some good fat loss from 6 months at 2iu's and I feel my body composition has changed. Now I'm finished with the IGF so I'm gonna take it up to 4iu's for a few months and see how that works. I guess if I had a choice between a Gh only and test only cycle I would take the test. It would depend on what I'm looking for and also the time of year.