gh IM vs subq

**blondmyth** · 02-02-2007, 06:44 PM

is there any benefit of injecting gh subq as opposed to IM?

**jdavis2007** · 02-02-2007, 07:03 PM

Yes...sub q is superior. When you inject GH IM...it is slowly releasing which causes the negative feedback loop (which blocks natural GH secretion) to last considerably longer. There are plenty of studies at pubmed.com that will state that sub-q is superior for this reason.

When you inject sub-q you are getting one 'release' which causes a negative feedback loop for roughly 4 hours.

**blondmyth** · 02-02-2007, 11:10 PM

i thought IM is always released sooner, which is why humulog is suggested to be taken that way instead of sub q, so that it will only last 2-3 hrs. is gh any different in the way it disperses thru the muscle?

**Ufa** · 02-02-2007, 11:18 PM

Half life for sup-q 90 min. IM 40 min, IV 20 min. Everybody does the
sub-q.

***SPIKE*** · 02-03-2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by jdavis2007

When you inject GH IM...it is slowly releasing which causes the negative feedback loop

Actually IM is quicker and there is a negative feedback loop either way as GHRH will be temporarily "shut down."

Originally Posted by blondmyth

i thought IM is always released sooner

You're correct Blondmyth, IM releases sooner. It also has a higher bioavailability, roughly 25% higher. But the half life is much longer with Sub-Q as Ufa stated, that's why most inject Sub-Q.

**blondmyth** · 02-03-2007, 07:48 PM

so why would one want the negative feedback loop to be longer with sub-q when it could be shorter with IM?

**blondmyth** · 02-04-2007, 01:30 AM

any help fellas?

***SPIKE*** · 02-04-2007, 01:52 AM

The thing is Blond, if Sub-Q has a half-life of roughly an hour and a half. It's not like you're going to have an exogenous amount of GH that is going to "shut down" natty GH production for only that long. It just doesnt work that easily. That would be horrible if that were the truth. That would mean someone would be spending all this money on GH for quick 40min half life IM. Get it?

An example of this is when people run GH 5/2. Do you really think in those 2 days you're natty GH will be back in full force running? Keep in mind that's far beyond what you're saying about IM and Sub-q with the time being shut down longer with Sub-Q.

**thebrakes** · 02-07-2007, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by jdavis2007

Yes...sub q is superior. When you inject GH IM...it is slowly releasing which causes the negative feedback loop (which blocks natural GH secretion) to last considerably longer. There are plenty of studies at pubmed.com that will state that sub-q is superior for this reason.

When you inject sub-q you are getting one 'release' which causes a negative feedback loop for roughly 4 hours.

yikes, that sounds so far off base. care to post one of those studies??