The truth on HGH?

[ModernWarrior]

If HGH is stronger than your normal anabolic steroids and has less side effects, why is it not used more widely? Simply because it has to be stored in fridge and because of the much higher price? Or am I drastically wrong about the less side effects part?

hmmm...

thanks for any replies

[Sauced_Up]

If HGH is stronger than your normal anabolic steroids and has less side effects, why is it not used more widely? Simply because it has to be stored in fridge and because of the much higher price? Or am I drastically wrong about the less side effects part?

hmmm...

thanks for any replies

GH is used widely only thing is to get the full effects of gh you need to be on for a long period of time. With its extremely high price compared to AAS thats why you see some people deviate away from it.

[Ashop]

If HGH is stronger than your normal anabolic steroids and has less side effects, why is it not used more widely? Simply because it has to be stored in fridge and because of the much higher price? Or am I drastically wrong about the less side effects part?

hmmm...

thanks for any replies

I dont even think you can compare AAS with HGH. After using both numerous times for many years. HGH is very different than any AAS and IMO it's best attribute is its fat loss ability. I think its well worth the price if your an advanced,,experienced athlete.

[Rickson]

I am not sure what you mean by stronger than anabolic steroids. If you think you will get similar effects on muscle mass and strength in a relatively short time period like AAS you will be very disappointed. Like was said above, these are very different compounds.

[Tolerance]

Although with HGH you won't see the side effects you see from AAS's, are the long term health risks the same? Or are they also less/almost non-existant?

ty

[kdizzog]

The price does it for me, that stuff is expensive! You have to run it for at least 6 months.

[hankdiesel]

The price does it for me, that stuff is expensive! You have to run it for at least 6 months.

That would be several thousand dollars. I'd rather get a ton of juice.....

[RedBaron]

Although with HGH you won't see the side effects you see from AAS's, are the long term health risks the same? Or are they also less/almost non-existant?

ty

If you use HGH intelligently, the side effects are just about non-existent, unless you count a lean body and healthy skin and organs a side effect. If you are a middle-aged athlete, it actually does some really positive, beneficial health things for you. All of the negative press that you see about HGH and it "unproven" abilities with anti-aging, health and healing, and athletic benefit are articles written by medical staff that have never even seen the stuff up close and personal ... much less used it. Ask any older athlete that is on HRT or TRT whether or not it makes a difference. It really does!

The flip-side to this though, is that because it does have a very positive benefit for those that are older athletes, athletes that have already achieved their genetic potential for growth and development, for athletes nursing various injuries, and children that have growth deficiencies, people of all shapes, sizes, and ages have jumped on the HGH bandwagon which is a huge mistake.

I will step on my soapbox just for a minute or two ... there are some really unsettling trends that are just plain wrong that should not be going on.

While HGH will certainly help the right group of people mentioned above, for the rest of the world it is a really, really, really expensive fat burning assist ... Definitely NOT worth the money or the time to mess with. There is a big difference in a world-class, mature athlete that needs another 3-4-5 pounds to take him to the next level, and a 20 year old that weighs 185 soaking wet that could eat a little better and show some dedication in the gym and gain 20-30 pounds without anything other than that food and dedication. Using HGH is only worthwhile for a select group of people. It works well in that way, but does not deserve the pedistal it has been put on and the panacea to all the worlds athletic endeavors.

All of that being said, steroids are in the same boat in a lot of regards. I am an old school bodybuilder. Back where I came from, you ate boatloads of high protein foods and worked your buttock off six days a week in the gym, and were rewarded with strength and size. I had been lifting seriously and religiously for a decade, and already weighed 230'ish before I ever even thought about needing assistance. Now all I see are a bunch of people looking for the lazy-mans shortcut to looking like we did with a lot of hard work.

Problem is, it doesn't work that way. I see way too many people that have claimed to have cycled a half dozen cycles that still aren't even as big as I was before I had completed my first year of natural weight lifting, much less ever even thought about thinking about a first basic cycle. Steroids also don't deserve this panacea status ... it doesn't pan out. If it did, you would see nothing but 300 pound Ruhl-like monsters walking the earth. All I see is a bunch of young kids, bald, with acne, 180 pounds soaking wet discussing the 25th cycle, all the while planning for what they will do when their arteries completely harden and close up from the abuse they are dishing out.

The point is everything has its place. If you have a headache, take a Tylenol. If you don't, then a Tylenol is a waste of time and money, and isn't going to do a single blipping thing for you. If you are already an advanced athlete that has invested the time and effort in achieving a great level of development, then the above discussed substances are going to be something to take you to the next level and keep you there. If you are just starting out and aspiring to be that, then all you are setting yourself up for is being much poorer, much less healthy, and in general greatly disappointed. Drugs of any kind won't buy a physique like you admire in athletes ... only hard work and decades of dedication will do that.

Okay, I will step of the soapbox now. Point is be smart and you will be rewarded. Act stupidly and your just in for all manner of grief and never reach your goal.

[Dont wanna be old]

The benefits I would get at 50 are far superior to that of a young man . I believe a young man loses BF and slight strength . They also take chances of side effects . At 50 I believe , skin elasticity improved , overall well being and fat loss . The basic slowing of putting foot in grave IMO .
That may not be entirely true but what I would like to believe .

[RedBaron]

The benefits I would get at 50 are far superior to that of a young man . I believe a young man loses BF and slight strength . They also take chances of side effects . At 50 I believe , skin elasticity improved , overall well being and fat loss . The basic slowing of putting foot in grave IMO .
That may not be entirely true but what I would like to believe .

It is in general true. Beginning in your later 30's your HGH levels take a seriously fast decline, and your tissues stop efficiently repairing themselves. That is what the medical community calls "aging", but with the addition of some HGH at that point you can slow (not-stop) the process and still look and act like that 30 year old into your 50's. For the non-professional athlete segment of the world, this is the group that can greatly benefit from it.

[Ronnie Rowland]

Like steroids, people have different responses to drugs like GH and insulin. GH is the only drug that I know of that causes hyperplasia of muscle cells but I feel it's best used for fat burning as stated above by RED BARON. He made a great post!

If I recall correctly, Dave Palumbo said he hit 240 lbs with steroids, 260 lbs after adding GH into the mix and then went over 300 lbs after introducing insulin.

[RedBaron]

There is no question that the increase in the size of bodybuilders of today versus those of the 70's and early 80's is because of the use of HGH and insulin. The Mr. O of that era wouldn't even qualify to hit the stage these days. Used for the right reasons and in the right way, they will let you grow way beyond what your genetic limitations would dictate.

I am saying that is one legitimate use. Anti-aging is another legitimate use. I am not sure that I would say fat burning is a legitimate use. There are a million and one other ways to combat fat ... safer, cheaper, and faster.

[Reed]

God I love Post 8. To bad more peeps won't read that around here

[inky-e]

I ran gh last year in my cycle and the changes that my physique went through were nothing short of dramatic. I can't wait to use it again in August.

[Immortal Soldier]

There is no question that the increase in the size of bodybuilders of today versus those of the 70's and early 80's is because of the use of HGH and insulin. The Mr. O of that era wouldn't even qualify to hit the stage these days. Used for the right reasons and in the right way, they will let you grow way beyond what your genetic limitations would dictate.

I am saying that is one legitimate use. Anti-aging is another legitimate use. I am not sure that I would say fat burning is a legitimate use. There are a million and one other ways to combat fat ... safer, cheaper, and faster.

The only reason I would ever want to take HGH, is the ability to induce hyperplasia of the muscle cells (splitting of muscle cells) so in theory you are altering your genetics to be more conducive for body building.

Because after 24 weeks of fetal development, you only have X amount of muscle cells or muscle fibers in place, steroids and weightlifting and supplements can only make the cells bigger, but they cant make more of the cells or cause splitting.

So my question is, with HGH, what dosage would you have to run to induce hyperplasia and would it be worth it?

Since you are more experienced in this area, this is why I ask you.

[Polska]

There are a million and one other ways to combat fat ... safer, cheaper, and faster.

Red Baron, on top of strict dieting and cardio, which compound(s) do you suggest are safe,cheaper,faster than HGH for fat loss?

[NewMuscle83]

If you use HGH intelligently, the side effects are just about non-existent, unless you count a lean body and healthy skin and organs a side effect. If you are a middle-aged athlete, it actually does some really positive, beneficial health things for you. All of the negative press that you see about HGH and it "unproven" abilities with anti-aging, health and healing, and athletic benefit are articles written by medical staff that have never even seen the stuff up close and personal ... much less used it. Ask any older athlete that is on HRT or TRT whether or not it makes a difference. It really does!

The flip-side to this though, is that because it does have a very positive benefit for those that are older athletes, athletes that have already achieved their genetic potential for growth and development, for athletes nursing various injuries, and children that have growth deficiencies, people of all shapes, sizes, and ages have jumped on the HGH bandwagon which is a huge mistake.

I will step on my soapbox just for a minute or two ... there are some really unsettling trends that are just plain wrong that should not be going on.

While HGH will certainly help the right group of people mentioned above, for the rest of the world it is a really, really, really expensive fat burning assist ... Definitely NOT worth the money or the time to mess with. There is a big difference in a world-class, mature athlete that needs another 3-4-5 pounds to take him to the next level, and a 20 year old that weighs 185 soaking wet that could eat a little better and show some dedication in the gym and gain 20-30 pounds without anything other than that food and dedication. Using HGH is only worthwhile for a select group of people. It works well in that way, but does not deserve the pedistal it has been put on and the panacea to all the worlds athletic endeavors.

All of that being said, steroids are in the same boat in a lot of regards. I am an old school bodybuilder. Back where I came from, you ate boatloads of high protein foods and worked your buttock off six days a week in the gym, and were rewarded with strength and size. I had been lifting seriously and religiously for a decade, and already weighed 230'ish before I ever even thought about needing assistance. Now all I see are a bunch of people looking for the lazy-mans shortcut to looking like we did with a lot of hard work.

Problem is, it doesn't work that way. I see way too many people that have claimed to have cycled a half dozen cycles that still aren't even as big as I was before I had completed my first year of natural weight lifting, much less ever even thought about thinking about a first basic cycle. Steroids also don't deserve this panacea status ... it doesn't pan out. If it did, you would see nothing but 300 pound Ruhl-like monsters walking the earth. All I see is a bunch of young kids, bald, with acne, 180 pounds soaking wet discussing the 25th cycle, all the while planning for what they will do when their arteries completely harden and close up from the abuse they are dishing out.

The point is everything has its place. If you have a headache, take a Tylenol. If you don't, then a Tylenol is a waste of time and money, and isn't going to do a single blipping thing for you. If you are already an advanced athlete that has invested the time and effort in achieving a great level of development, then the above discussed substances are going to be something to take you to the next level and keep you there. If you are just starting out and aspiring to be that, then all you are setting yourself up for is being much poorer, much less healthy, and in general greatly disappointed. Drugs of any kind won't buy a physique like you admire in athletes ... only hard work and decades of dedication will do that.

Okay, I will step of the soapbox now. Point is be smart and you will be rewarded. Act stupidly and your just in for all manner of grief and never reach your goal.

One of the best posts I've read on this site since I joined. Well put, brother.

[NewMuscle83]

Red Baron, on top of strict dieting and cardio, which compound(s) do you suggest are safe,cheaper,faster than HGH for fat loss?

Honestly, man, not to sound like a dick, but if you're doing strict dieting and sufficient cardio, you wouldn't be asking what else you can throw in.

Correct and dedicated diet and cardio are the BEST for fat loss. I'm speaking out of experience of course. I guess an OTC fat burner wouldn't hurt, but it's definitely not needed.

[RedBaron]

The only reason I would ever want to take HGH, is the ability to induce hyperplasia of the muscle cells (splitting of muscle cells) so in theory you are altering your genetics to be more conducive for body building.

Because after 24 weeks of fetal development, you only have X amount of muscle cells or muscle fibers in place, steroids and weightlifting and supplements can only make the cells bigger, but they cant make more of the cells or cause splitting.

So my question is, with HGH, what dosage would you have to run to induce hyperplasia and would it be worth it?

Since you are more experienced in this area, this is why I ask you.

If you have reached your potential for growth with weight-lifting and standard class steroids, then I would say considering HGH would be a worthwhile endeavor.

The amount you would likely need to run would vary somewhat depending on its origin. If you're talking about American pharma grade HGH, then 5-6 IU's will typically do a nice job. If you're dealing with most 3rd world offerings, it is going to take more along 10-12 IU's to do anything of real significance with respect to more muscle cells and growth.

[Ronnie Rowland]

If you have reached your potential for growth with weight-lifting and standard class steroids, then I would say considering HGH would be a worthwhile endeavor.

The amount you would likely need to run would vary somewhat depending on its origin. If you're talking about American pharma grade HGH, then 5-6 IU's will typically do a nice job. If you're dealing with most 3rd world offerings, it is going to take more along 10-12 IU's to do anything of real significance with respect to more muscle cells and growth.

That's what I have seen as well Red Baron. Great information!

The cost of GH is just ridiculous for most people-hence making it not worth the effort. Many of these same people use tren to obtain a harder look.

[HIITB$]

If you use HGH intelligently, the side effects are just about non-existent, unless you count a lean body and healthy skin and organs a side effect. If you are a middle-aged athlete, it actually does some really positive, beneficial health things for you. All of the negative press that you see about HGH and it "unproven" abilities with anti-aging, health and healing, and athletic benefit are articles written by medical staff that have never even seen the stuff up close and personal ... much less used it. Ask any older athlete that is on HRT or TRT whether or not it makes a difference. It really does!

The flip-side to this though, is that because it does have a very positive benefit for those that are older athletes, athletes that have already achieved their genetic potential for growth and development, for athletes nursing various injuries, and children that have growth deficiencies, people of all shapes, sizes, and ages have jumped on the HGH bandwagon which is a huge mistake.

I will step on my soapbox just for a minute or two ... there are some really unsettling trends that are just plain wrong that should not be going on.

While HGH will certainly help the right group of people mentioned above, for the rest of the world it is a really, really, really expensive fat burning assist ... Definitely NOT worth the money or the time to mess with. There is a big difference in a world-class, mature athlete that needs another 3-4-5 pounds to take him to the next level, and a 20 year old that weighs 185 soaking wet that could eat a little better and show some dedication in the gym and gain 20-30 pounds without anything other than that food and dedication. Using HGH is only worthwhile for a select group of people. It works well in that way, but does not deserve the pedistal it has been put on and the panacea to all the worlds athletic endeavors.

All of that being said, steroids are in the same boat in a lot of regards. I am an old school bodybuilder. Back where I came from, you ate boatloads of high protein foods and worked your buttock off six days a week in the gym, and were rewarded with strength and size. I had been lifting seriously and religiously for a decade, and already weighed 230'ish before I ever even thought about needing assistance. Now all I see are a bunch of people looking for the lazy-mans shortcut to looking like we did with a lot of hard work.

Problem is, it doesn't work that way. I see way too many people that have claimed to have cycled a half dozen cycles that still aren't even as big as I was before I had completed my first year of natural weight lifting, much less ever even thought about thinking about a first basic cycle. Steroids also don't deserve this panacea status ... it doesn't pan out. If it did, you would see nothing but 300 pound Ruhl-like monsters walking the earth. All I see is a bunch of young kids, bald, with acne, 180 pounds soaking wet discussing the 25th cycle, all the while planning for what they will do when their arteries completely harden and close up from the abuse they are dishing out.

The point is everything has its place. If you have a headache, take a Tylenol. If you don't, then a Tylenol is a waste of time and money, and isn't going to do a single blipping thing for you. If you are already an advanced athlete that has invested the time and effort in achieving a great level of development, then the above discussed substances are going to be something to take you to the next level and keep you there. If you are just starting out and aspiring to be that, then all you are setting yourself up for is being much poorer, much less healthy, and in general greatly disappointed. Drugs of any kind won't buy a physique like you admire in athletes ... only hard work and decades of dedication will do that.

Okay, I will step of the soapbox now. Point is be smart and you will be rewarded. Act stupidly and your just in for all manner of grief and never reach your goal.

I know this already been quoted but im doing it again, shameless....GREAT post mang!

[ModernWarrior]

If someone were to take HGH, would that be all they need to take? From start to finish of the cycle?

[RedBaron]

If someone were to take HGH, would that be all they need to take? From start to finish of the cycle?

There are a lot of variables associated with a question like that, and for that reason there isn't a simple answer. It depends on why you are taking HGH in the first place - Advanced Bodybuilder? Anti-Aging patient? Hormone deficient kid? Medical injury recovery? The list goes on and on.

For the most part and in general, the answer is no. It usually isn't a very good investment to take nothing but HGH. It works a lot better in concert with a good solid cycle.

A beginning cycle or as part of an anti-aging strategy, you would probably be considering HGH with Test Cyp. From there, it escalates and there are a lot of directions to go. If we are talking about its use in advanced bodybuilders, then certainly is it best used as part of a well thought out cycle. I will give you a general idea of how I used to incorporate HGH into cycles when I was a competitor - this would be a typical type cycle for a seasoned bodybuilder that should be considering HGH as part of the mix. Certainly not the only way to do it, but one way that is effective.

1-23 Test Cyp (increasing dose on 16-23)
1-8 Deca (lowering dose on 9-20)
1-4, 24-27 Test Prop
9-20 Tren Enanthate
9-20 EQ

HGH 6IU's/day 5 on/ 2off (3IU's on waking, 3IU's early afternoon, Pharma grade).
LR3 IGF-1 5 weeks / off 5 weeks rotating throughout the cycle.
Humalog workout days only PWO rotating 5 weeks on / 5 weeks off throughout (opposing weeks with LR3 IGF-1).

15-27 Proviron
23-26 HCG
27-31 Clomid

1-31 Arimidex
1-27 Nolvadex, 28-32 increase dose
1-31 B6 200mg/day
1-31 B12 500mcg/day

At any rate, that is just a simple example of what HGH would look like in an intermediate type cycle.

All that being said, there are many occasions where you will see HGH ran on its own. Some anti-aging applications, some bodybuilders between cycles, some people nursing nasty injuries, etc. As I started this with, it really is too complex a question for a simple answer. Hope that helps at least a little.

[skinnypunk]

I have heard that there are some really serious concerns associated with using HGH. The main one being: If the user has an existing tumor, the HGH can actually accelerate its growth. If this is true, it would be EXTREMELY important to have a thorough checkout by a physician before introducing HGH. Is there any merit to this?

[RedBaron]

I have heard that there are some really serious concerns associated with using HGH. The main one being: If the user has an existing tumor, the HGH can actually accelerate its growth. If this is true, it would be EXTREMELY important to have a thorough checkout by a physician before introducing HGH. Is there any merit to this?

There is a degree of merit in this, but probably not as much merit as it has been blown up to have. Tumors can produce their own growth factors ... that is why many of them are so hard to deal with. They don't need external input to grow and thrive.

Now that being said, if you have a tumor that is responsive to growth factors, the last thing you want to be doing is to intentionally elevate them into the stratosphere. The flip side to this though is HGH actually has some benefit in helping immune function and in combatting disease, so the lingering discussion is always whether it is a bad thing (elevating growth factors) or a good thing (combatting diseases, tumors, and many other illnesses). I don't think we have a great enough body of data to really say much one way or the other there.

I guess bottom line is that like anything else you do to your body, you have to use a little common sense. If you are a cancer patient, or have a damning family history toward such, then you should take a much more careful look at thing that elevate your growth factors. Also, before starting any anabolic or other hormone, it is always wise to have a doctor give you a thorough once-over and pull a baseline level of many markers ... just for reference.

[jackjackson]

There are a lot of variables associated with a question like that, and for that reason there isn't a simple answer. It depends on why you are taking HGH in the first place - Advanced Bodybuilder? Anti-Aging patient? Hormone deficient kid? Medical injury recovery? The list goes on and on.

For the most part and in general, the answer is no. It usually isn't a very good investment to take nothing but HGH. It works a lot better in concert with a good solid cycle.

A beginning cycle or as part of an anti-aging strategy, you would probably be considering HGH with Test Cyp. From there, it escalates and there are a lot of directions to go. If we are talking about its use in advanced bodybuilders, then certainly is it best used as part of a well thought out cycle. I will give you a general idea of how I used to incorporate HGH into cycles when I was a competitor - this would be a typical type cycle for a seasoned bodybuilder that should be considering HGH as part of the mix. Certainly not the only way to do it, but one way that is effective.

1-23 Test Cyp (increasing dose on 16-23)
1-8 Deca (lowering dose on 9-20)
1-4, 24-27 Test Prop
9-20 Tren Enanthate
9-20 EQ

HGH 6IU's/day 5 on/ 2off (3IU's on waking, 3IU's early afternoon, Pharma grade).
LR3 IGF-1 5 weeks / off 5 weeks rotating throughout the cycle.
Humalog workout days only PWO rotating 5 weeks on / 5 weeks off throughout (opposing weeks with LR3 IGF-1).

15-27 Proviron
23-26 HCG
27-31 Clomid

1-31 Arimidex
1-27 Nolvadex, 28-32 increase dose
1-31 B6 200mg/day
1-31 B12 500mcg/day

At any rate, that is just a simple example of what HGH would look like in an intermediate type cycle.

All that being said, there are many occasions where you will see HGH ran on its own. Some anti-aging applications, some bodybuilders between cycles, some people nursing nasty injuries, etc. As I started this with, it really is too complex a question for a simple answer. Hope that helps at least a little.

Wow
Im saving up now for HGH, looking at a few thousand to at least run 5 or 6iu.
Not that I need it now but saving the cash.
Awesome thread

[SheriD]

If you have reached your potential for growth with weight-lifting and standard class steroids, then I would say considering HGH would be a worthwhile endeavor.

The amount you would likely need to run would vary somewhat depending on its origin. If you're talking about American pharma grade HGH, then 5-6 IU's will typically do a nice job. If you're dealing with most 3rd world offerings, it is going to take more along 10-12 IU's to do anything of real significance with respect to more muscle cells and growth.

RedBaron: How would you compare Jintropin (Gensci) stuff with the Genotropin (Pharma grade) .... are they of similar quality??? As Gensci is one of top labs in china which produces quality HGH?????