GH vs AAS

Printable View

12-18-2005, 07:23 PM
ByGtYmEr

GH vs AAS

hey guys new to the site..think its awosme...
ive done 2 cycles of AAS and iam thinkin of trying a GH cycle tell me is there a big differance between the two???

i know there is a huge differance in price so i assume a huge differance in gains... is this true???

and lastly how do i get started? what do i nee dto buy???

thanks for you help

newbe
12-18-2005, 07:26 PM
oldman

Two different things altogether. You are not going to get gains from GH unless you use High doses and then the sides suck. I personally think that using GH in combo with AAS is your best bet.. If you are looking for just gains stick with the cheaper AAS (Basic Test and whatnot)

Oldman :hello:
12-18-2005, 07:29 PM
ByGtYmEr

well doesnt everybody want gains..why wouldnt everybody just do AAS????
thanks for input
12-18-2005, 07:29 PM
Pinnacle

Yes ...there is a big difference between anabolic steroids and HGH.The difference being,you'll grow on anabolics,whereas you won't on growth hormone?Surprised by my answer?I advise you to research before you even think about using HGH(especially if you think it makes you grow muscle tissue).

To answer your question on how you get started.That's easy...RESEARCH!

You need not buy anything.The information on this site is free.I urge you to take advantage of that.As you are in dire need of this.

~Pinnacle~
12-18-2005, 07:35 PM
oldman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByGtYmEr

well doesnt everybody want gains..why wouldnt everybody just do AAS????
thanks for input

I think Pinn is more of an expert on this than me but what I want to gain from using GH in addition to AAS is the synergy effect 1+1=3. I don't know if GH is having a profound effect on my fatloss at my low doses but I do know i feel better overall and I get much better rest than before starting GH. Of course it does take much longer to notice GH benefits (at least 3 months) to notice benefits from my understanding and then 6 months for them to really come into full effect.

Oldman
12-18-2005, 08:00 PM
ByGtYmEr

thanks for your input guys...i have read the articles posted about gh but i guess iam still unaware of what it really does if it doesnt porduce muscle gain and weight loss...i appreciate your input and your info...
however i still dont understand why gh is so great and so expensive then....iam a pro athlete and i have read that a lot of pro athletes take this and i was curious to why..a lot of my teamates and friends have said it is great and i see great gains with them..
12-18-2005, 08:31 PM
Pinnacle

Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2005 Apr;62(4):449-57. Related Articles, Links

Supraphysiological growth hormone: less fat, more extracellular fluid but uncertain effects on muscles in healthy, active young adults.

Ehrnborg C, Ellegard L, Bosaeus I, Bengtsson BA, Rosen T.

Research Centre for Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Goteborg, Sweden.

Summary Objectives To study the effects on body composition after 1 month's administration of supraphysiological doses of growth hormone (GH) in healthy, active young adults with normal GH-IGF-I axis. Subjects and methods Thirty healthy, physically active volunteers (15 men and 15 women), mean age 25.9 years (range 18-35), participated in this study, designed as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study with three groups (n = 10: five men and five women in each group). The groups comprised the following: placebo (P), GH 0.1 IU/kg/day [0.033 mg/kg/day] (GH 0.1) and GH 0.2 IU/kg/day [0.067 mg/kg/day] (GH 0.2). Results In the pooled group with active GH treatment (n = 20) the results showed significant increases: IGF-I increased by 134% (baseline vs. after 1 month), body weight by 2.7%, fat free mass by 5.3%, total body water by 6.5% and extracellular water (ECW) by 9.6%. Body fat decreased significantly by 6.6%. No significant change in intracellular water was detected. The observed increase in fat free mass by 5.3% was explained by the ECW increase, indicating limited anabolic effects of the supraphysiological GH doses. Changes were noticeable in both genders, although more prominent in the male subjects. Fluid retention symptoms occurred in the majority of individuals. Conclusions This is, to our knowledge, the first placebo-controlled trial to show the effects of supraphysiological GH doses on body composition and IGF-I levels in physically active and healthy individuals of both genders; the results indicate limited anabolic effects of GH with these supraphysiological doses. The role of GH as an effective anabolic doping agent is questioned.

PMID: 15807876 [PubMed - in process]
12-18-2005, 08:32 PM
Pinnacle

You know who Nandi is,right?

Here's what he once said in a post..

quote: Is HGH the pinnacle of Anabolism?

You're joking, right?

__________________
[email protected]
12-18-2005, 08:34 PM
Pinnacle

Here's the thread..........

http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com/For...5&pagenumber=1
12-18-2005, 08:35 PM
Pinnacle

You want more?I can direct you to tons of info showing HGH doesn't cause hyper-plasma....let me know.

~Pinnacle~
12-18-2005, 08:45 PM
Pinnacle

Here's another great thread my Nandi......

http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com/For...growth+hormone
12-18-2005, 08:57 PM
Pinnacle

.................

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUNGRY,Nov 24 2003, 01:54 AM

Is this the correct path for Muscle fiber Hyperplasia (simplified)=
muscle fiber hypertrophy -->
satellite cell proliferation -->
myogenesis (via-- growth factor (FGF), the insulin-like growth factors (IGF-I and -II), and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta)-->
new muscle fiber.
Does hyperplasia occur in postnatal phase of humans, and are stem cells still present during the postnatal phase? Answers---
What causes satellite cell proliferation exactly? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...5&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...8&dopt=Abstract
Anyone believe muscle fiber hyperplasia can occur in humans? How? -Answers--
Meta-analysis paper on hyperplasia in animals--
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full...date=11/30/2003

DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis attempted to quantify the magnitude of change in muscle (particularly muscle fiber number) as a result of mechanical overload. Across all designs and categories, mechanical overload resulted in increases in muscle mass, muscle fiber area (hypertrophy), and muscle fiber number (hyperplasia). Not surprisingly, increases in fiber area were approximately twice as great as increases in fiber number. It appears that hyperplasia in animals is greatest when certain types of mechanical overload, particularly stretch, are applied. The results of this investigation are similar to a recent narrative review that concluded that muscle fiber hyperplasia 1) consistently occurs as a result of chronic stretch, 2) rarely occurs with overload in the form of compensatory hypertrophy, and 3) has produced mixed results when overload in the form of exercise is employed (8). Although it is well established that mechanical-overload training results in increased fiber area (hypertrophy), and thus increases in muscle mass, the contribution of increased fiber number (hyperplasia) to increases in muscle mass has been more controversial. However, there now exists quantitative evidence to support the fact that certain types of overload, particularly stretch, result in increases in muscle fiber number. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this investigation to examine the processes (satellite cell proliferation and longitudinal fiber splitting) responsible for such changes.
http://www.jhc.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/8/1097
Testosterone inject/ satellite cell proliferation
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/...ract/285/1/E197
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...8&dopt=Abstract
Math problem:
They gave 0.25 mg/100 g body weight of testosterone to this rat, which would be how much test for a 200lb male?

[snapback]94204[/snapback]
12-18-2005, 09:25 PM
goose

pinn-your on top form 2nite.Plus bygt your in your 20`s,not for you.Save your money on protein.

goose4.........
12-19-2005, 11:22 AM
JAMIE720

I personally have experianced the ability to eat more food without putting on much of any fat while combining aas and gh.I feel theres definiately a synergy going on when combining gh with other compounds that nets more muscle than the other componds used alone,specifically aas.I was using just aas for 6 years and had plateaued until adding gh for the last 5 months and have gained 15 solid pounds.I think gh and lr3 are useful for those who have reached sticking points.
12-19-2005, 01:35 PM
oswaldosalcedo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByGtYmEr

well doesnt everybody want gains..why wouldnt everybody just do AAS????
thanks for input

expectations.........................
12-19-2005, 01:44 PM
oswaldosalcedo

[quote=Pinnacle]You know who Nandi is,right?

Here's what he once said in a post..

quote: Is HGH the pinnacle of Anabolism?
You're joking, right?

great pinn !

welcome to the kingdom of the skepticism.................
12-19-2005, 02:08 PM
JohnnyB

HGH isn't what the hype makes it out to be, I like LR3 better then HGH, but for muscle gains, AAS hands down

JohnnyB
12-19-2005, 02:22 PM
Pinnacle

[quote=oswaldosalcedo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinnacle

You know who Nandi is,right?

Here's what he once said in a post..

quote: Is HGH the pinnacle of Anabolism?
You're joking, right?

great pinn !

welcome to the kingdom of the skepticism.................

More like realism Ossie.The wild claims ppl make in regards to HGH and IGF have me going crazy.Nothing you can do about that though.Except debunk there claims.Or request clinical evidence.Which in most cases they can't produce.Particularly the claims made with LR3 IGF-1.Muscle growth?HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

~Pinnacle~
12-19-2005, 02:41 PM
oswaldosalcedo

[quote=Pinnacle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oswaldosalcedo

More like realism Ossie.The wild claims ppl make in regards to HGH and IGF have me going crazy.Nothing you can do about that though.Except debunk there claims.Or request clinical evidence.Which in most cases they can't produce.Particularly the claims made with LR3 IGF-1.Muscle growth?HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

~Pinnacle~

critical realism .............lol.....................
12-19-2005, 05:00 PM
Vegas67

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

HGH isn't what the hype makes it out to be, I like LR3 better then HGH, but for muscle gains, AAS hands down

JohnnyB

I completely agree with this...been on GH for the better part of 2 years. I am 2 weeks into IGF and see way more potential for gains and bf losses. Going to be interesting to see after a couple of cycles how IGF and slin+gh work together with AAS.