Intramuscular GH? New research suggests it's best

[seeker11]

What are your thought's on this article about IM injection being superior to Subq?

I hear a lot of competitive bodybuilders are using IM nowadays.

I marked the important pieces black:


Intramuscular GH? New Research Suggests It Is Best
Written by Dan Gwartney, MD
Tuesday, 03 March 2009

Human growth hormone (hGH), despite all the news and sensationalism, is a hormone with a relatively short history. Early attempts to provide exogenous GH to humans failed, as the first material came from the pituitary glands of cows and human patients developed antibodies against the foreign protein. Strange as it sounds nowadays, the effort seemed reasonable at the time, as bovine (cow) extracts containing insulin were fairly successful in treating insulin-dependent diabetics.1

It was not until 1958 that an effective treatment for human GH deficiency was reported; pioneering endocrinologist M.S. Raben treated an adolescent suffering from dwarfism with purified GH extracted from the pituitary glands (a gland located at the base of the brain) of cadavers (dead people).2 This extract, called cadaveric GH, was the mainstay of treating children of short stature for decades until it was discovered that some of the cadaveric GH recipients were developing a degenerative and ultimately fatal brain disorder (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) that was found to be due to an infectious agent present in the extracted material used to produce cadaveric GH— 405 cases were diagnosed between 1985 and 2006.3 In cattle, the infectious agent causes “mad cow disease.”

Fortunately, a series of events had occurred in the biotechnology sector that allowed for a rapid transition to a novel source of the hormone. On April 7, 1976, a new company was incorporated called Genentech, now worth in excess of $80 billion. Genentech recognized the commercial value of a new methodology developed in certain university laboratories, whereby protein-based hormones could be produced by bacteria that had been injected with human DNA, allowing for a virtually unlimited supply with near-zero risk of contamination. This could be accomplished by inserting the genes (DNA) for human hormones into bacteria, which then would continuously secrete the high-dollar material into collecting dishes like colonies of pharmaceutical Shmoo (a fictional character created by cartoonist Al Capp that existed merely to feed the hunger of humans). Genentech’s initial interests lay in capitalizing upon the insulin market, as diabetics were dependent upon insulin extracted from the pancreas glands of cows and pigs. As animal-based insulin is slightly different from human insulin, some patients failed to respond predictably to the drug or developed antibodies that destroyed the hormone before it could provide any therapeutic benefit. Fortuitously, one of the company’s early employees arrived bearing technology and material that could produce hGH and by 1979, small batches of bacterial-derived GH were being produced.4

As clinicians recognized the link between cadaveric GH and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the Food and Drug Administration quickly acted to ban the use or marketing of all such products, causing demand for the bioengineered GH to skyrocket.5 Of course, high demand and high production costs associated with a patented product dictated that Genentech’s product would be quite expensive and limited in availability. Thus, widespread use of GH outside of treating GH-deficient children of short stature did not occur for several years. Though a select few athletes and people of means were rumored to have been using GH, even cadaveric GH, during the 1960s through the 1980s, it was the publication of a 1990 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that brought GH use into the mainstream.6 Since then, reports and allegations of GH use by athletes and the pre-elderly have become a frequent occurrence.

Of course, among athletes, the pioneering use of most performance-enhancing substances occurs among strength athletes and bodybuilders. For decades, the use of muscle-building and fat-reducing drugs has been rampant at the top tier of these sports, much as it has been in track and field events and professional cycling. Among bodybuilders, GH is desired for its combined effects, providing a potent anabolic effect to muscle while promoting fat loss and aiding in recovery and soft-tissue repair. Unfortunately, early users extrapolated their dosing based upon use in children, causing them to use excessively high doses and subsequently suffering disfiguring side effects and health issues, including: facial distortions, elongated fingers and toes, protruding bellies, fluid retention and problems with sugar control (glucose intolerance).7,8 An isolated case even suggests GH use as the cause of one man’s diabetes. Fortunately, the ultra-high dosing practices fell out of vogue just as many athletes realized the added muscle mass did not necessarily translate into increased strength. The bodybuilding organizations struggled to return some balance back into the judging standards.8 Undoubtedly, the high cost of GH detracted from its appeal, as well.

GH “replacement” therapy remains one of the foundational treatments in anti-aging medicine. One upside to the growing clinical use of GH is ongoing interest from the academic research community. Recently, two discoveries were reported of great interest to any person considering therapeutic or illicit use of GH. Typically, GH is injected just under the skin (subcutaneously), using the same size and type of needles that diabetics use to inject insulin. Initially, GH was administered by intramuscular injection, but studies demonstrated that children experienced similar growth when given subcutaneous injections, experiencing far less pain. GH was less bioavailable when injected by the subcutaneous route, however.9,10 But physicians saw similar clinical response, reduced risk of striking a nerve or blood vessel and the patients greatly preferred the easier subcutaneous injections. Bodybuilders were happy with this route and did not question subcutaneous injecting as the best method for using GH, especially as many of them suffer twice-weekly or more frequent intramuscular injections of anabolic steroids . The development of abscesses, formation of oil-filled cysts and bruising are not uncommon problems among users of anabolic steroids .11 So, for years, subcutaneous injections remained the norm and went unquestioned— until a recent study published in the European Journal of Endocrinology revisited the issue, looking at adult recipients of GH.12

Just as the early adult users often suffered side effects due to excessive doses when they tried to extrapolate the children’s therapeutic dosage (by weight), the idea of injecting subcutaneously is an example of adults not receiving the full benefits of GH by mimicking the pediatric experience. German endocrinologists and researchers teamed up to investigate the effects of gender, dose and route of administration (subcutaneous versus intramuscular) on the availability and effectiveness of GH. Ten male and 10 female subjects were recruited; subjects were healthy and athletic young adults— the doses provided were three to five times the recommended adult replacement dose, roughly nine to 20 units for the males. The subjects received three separate injections: ~9 units subcutaneously, ~9 units intramuscularly and ~20 units subcutaneously. Data obtained by analyzing the subjects’ blood over the next 36 hours revealed interesting results that might offer insight to users of GH.

Comparing the ~9 unit doses, it was clear that intramuscular injections provided significantly higher peaks in GH concentration and greater total-delivered dose.12 In fact, the male subjects received nearly 50 percent more total GH from the same dose when the hormone was injected into muscle as opposed to subcutaneous fat. While GH delivery was vastly improved with intramuscular injections, IGF-1 concentrations were no different between subcutaneous versus intramuscular injections following the same (single) dose. Thus, it is unclear at this time whether intramuscular administration would provide any anabolic or tissue repair benefits. Hopefully, further research will clarify this point with long-term studies.

As most preschoolers learn, boys are different from girls. In the above study, men cleared GH from their system more quickly. At first, this might seem a disadvantage, but in fact, it appears to be the basis for some of the physical advantages males display. Intramuscular GH not only peaked higher, but also earlier— so, despite being cleared more rapidly, a greater total amount of GH is delivered when injected into muscle.12 Not only does the body benefit from receiving more total drug/hormone, the cells of the body are able to prime themselves to respond to the next dose of GH more quickly as the drug is cleared. GH triggers responses in cells by binding to receptors on the surface, which activate a series of enzymes inside the cell.13 Ultimately, the reactions send chemical factors to the DNA to turn on growth-promoting processes.

The GH response sequence doesn’t always happen in a linear relationship; in other words, a little GH does not produce a little response in some reactions (GH is involved in over 400 metabolic processes).14 There appears to be a threshold concentration (when the cell is fully primed) that triggers the biochemical cascade in gender-specific reactions and once that level is passed, higher doses cause greater response.15 However, uncontrolled or continuous growth, enticing as that sounds, is neither healthy nor beneficial. To prevent the cell from being stressed with responding to another growth signal too soon, feedback suppressors are generated inside the cell at the same time the cell is building protein and burning fat.13 By clearing out GH more quickly, males also clear out the suppressor blockade, allowing the cells to respond to the next pulse of GH more quickly.

Perhaps the time is overdue in this article to remind the reader that GH is most effective when released in pulses, not as a steady, continuous signal. So although it was not seen with the single-dose study, it is likely that intramuscular GH would offer a more “lifelike” signal and possibly greater physiologic benefits over time.

The concepts of suppressor factors and pulsatile GH-release patterns appear to explain some of the differences seen between men and women relative to GH therapy. Typically, men respond much more robustly to GH therapy than women. Additionally, men have higher IGF-1 levels despite the sexes (male and female) releasing the same amount of GH.16,17
In a paper submitted to the journal Endocrinology, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania investigated the effect of “male” pattern (pulsatile) and “female” pattern (continuous) release of GH on the liver cells of rats.18 Similar to humans, rats display sex-based differences in GH release, with males generating sharp peaks and valleys in hormone concentration…females generally maintain a continuous release with little change in hormone concentration. As a result, females (rat and human) generate less IGF-1 and have a blunted effect to GH treatment. The researchers attempted to discover why this is so.

As mentioned above, when GH triggers its receptor, it generates biochemical signals that stimulate cell growth; it also stimulates suppressor signals to reduce the cell’s response to further GH signaling. While the growth signals require fairly high levels of GH, the suppressor proteins are generated by relatively low concentrations of the hormone.18 Thus, while women secrete the same or possibly greater total amounts of GH throughout the day, they benefit less due to the ongoing production of the suppressor proteins which block cells from reacting to GH. Even the male rat cells did not respond vigorously to GH when it was present continuously.18 Compared to the “male” pattern of GH pulses, a continuous “female” GH presence only generated about 10 percent to 15 percent of the response at the same dose.

Not only do females secrete GH in a pattern that is much less effective, they are also less capable of responding to the more optimal “male” pulsatile pattern. When exposed to pulses of GH, male cells responded twice as well. Further, certain genes in female cells are not activated by the GH cascade, even when a pulsatile pattern is presented, suggesting that sex-specific responses to the hormone have developed over the eons due to natural selection, evolution, intelligent design, God or whatever guiding force actually determines human existence.

Perhaps it is all scientific mumbo-jumbo as described above. What does it boil down to for the person considering GH treatment or use? Men have significant physiologic advantages in responding to GH, natural or pharmaceutical. In addition to secreting GH in a pattern that promotes, rather than suppresses, growth and positive changes, male cells are also programmed to respond to GH bursts more vigorously and certain enzymes are turned on that are not activated in female cells. In contrast, females secrete GH in a continuous fashion that causes cells to block any response or positive changes and when presented with a burst of GH, such as might occur during exercise, they experience a lower level of response and have different cellular effects. So, on the face of things, it appears that there is less justification for the use of GH, therapeutically or illicitly, in women. In practice, women do experience similar benefits from GH therapy but to a lesser degree than men, further emphasizing the need to consult with a qualified and experienced clinician when considering GH therapy or use.

Also, the standard method of administering GH, via a subcutaneous injection, may not be the best method. A higher peak, greater total amount and faster clearance occurred when GH was injected intramuscularly. The downside to this is a greater risk of injury (striking a nerve, injecting into a blood vessel, suffering a deep tissue infection), more pain and potential interference with anabolic steroid injections in those who use the two drugs during the same period.

The findings of the last two decades are very exciting and as the knowledge base expands regarding GH therapy, safer and more appropriate use of the drug is likely to expand, unless political hurdles occur. Research has shown that adults can benefit from very low doses of GH (0.5 to 3.0 units daily), avoiding most adverse side effects associated with the initial high-dose attempts.19 Further, ********** research has shown that GH may be beneficial to anabolic steroid users during post-cycle recovery by maintaining lean mass and lowering body fat while reducing systemic inflammation; certain parameters of cardiovascular function are also improved though greater work is done by the heart as measured by heart rate and blood pressure.20

The era of GH is still relatively new, as safe and reliable sources have been accessible to clinicians for less than 20 years and widespread use is still in its infancy. Sadly, the ethical and political drama relating to sports doping and Internet trafficking will curtail research in this area, much as it has for anabolic steroids. Hopefully, for those who use GH within the confines of approved uses, further research will be published, allowing clinicians and patients to approach decisions relating to GH therapy in an informed and educated manner. Further, though illicit use is not advocated, it is equally important to minimize the burden of unnecessary or suboptimal use by athletes or those seeking to avoid the perils of age or a sedentary lifestyle.

References:
1. Devlin JG, Brien T, et al. Effect of alteration of species source of insulin on insulin-antibody levels. Lancet, 1966;2:883-4.
2. Raben MS. Treatment of a pituitary dwarf with human growth hormone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1958;18:901-3.
3. Brown P, Brandel JP, et al. Iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: the waning of an era. Neurology, 2006;67:389-93.
4. Cronin MJ. Pioneering recombinant growth hormone manufacturing: pounds produced per mile of height. J Pediat, 1997;131(1 Pt 2):S5-7.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fatal degenerative neurologic disease in patients who received pituitary-derived human growth hormone. MMWR, 1985 June 21;34:359-60,365-6.
6. Rudman D, Feller AG, et al. Effects of human growth hormone in men over 60 years old. N Engl J Med, 1990;323:1-6.
7. Lehmann S, Cerra FB. Growth hormone and nutritional support: adverse metabolic effects. Nutr Clin Pract, 1992;7:27-30.
8. Nelson AE, Ken KY Ho. Abuse of growth hormone by athletes. Nature Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab, 2007;3:198-9.
9. Russo L, Moore WV. A comparison of subcutaneous and intramuscular administration of human growth hormone in the therapy of growth hormone deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1982;55:1003-6.
10. Jorgensen JO, Moller J, et al. Pharmacological aspects of growth hormone replacement therapy: route, frequency and timing of administration. Horm Res, 1990;33; Suppl, 4:77-82.
11. Rich JD, Dickinson BP, et al. Abscess related to anabolic-androgenic steroid injection. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1999;31:207-9.
12. Keller A, Wu Z, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GH: dependence on route and dosage of administration. Eur J Endocrinol, 2007;156:647-53.
13. Le Roith D, Nissley P. Knock your SOCS off! J Clin Invest, 2005;115:233-6.
14. Waters MJ, Hoang HN, et al. New insights into growth hormone action. J Mol Endocrinol, 2006;36:1-7.
15. Verma AS, Dhir RN, et al. Inadequacy of the Janus kinase 2/signal transducer and activator of transcription signal transduction pathway to mediate episodic growth hormone-dependent regulation of hepatic CYP2C11. Mol Pharmacol, 2005;67;891-901.
16. Koranyi J, Bosaeus I, et al. Body composition during GH replacement in adults - methodological variations with respect to gender. Eur J Endocrinol, 2006;154:545-53.
17. Johannsson G, Bjarnason R, et al. The individual responsiveness to growth hormone (GH) treatment in GH-deficient adults is dependent on the level of GH-binding protein, body mass index, age, and gender. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1996;81:1575-81.
18. Thangavel C, Shapiro BH. A molecular basis for the sexually dimorphic response to growth hormone. Endocrinology, 2007;148:2894-***.
19. Abrahamsen B, Nielsen TL, et al. Dose-, IGF-I- and sex-dependent changes in lipid profile and body composition during GH replacement therapy in adult onset GH deficiency. Eur J Endocrinol, 2004;150:671-9.
20. Graham MR, Baker JS, et al. Evidence for a decrease in cardiovascular risk factors following recombinant growth hormone administration in abstinent anabolic-androgenic steroid users. Growth Horm IGF Res, 2007;17:201-9.
-bron: Muscular Development Online Magazine - Intramuscular GH? New Research Suggests It Is Best
__________________

[Slide]

interesting. I think i might switch to IM and see if i notice any difference.

[peteroy01]

good read

[higherdesire]

Yeah good read. One thing that caught my attention in bold was about hitting a vein. Although not advisable gh can be ran iv was well so why would it matter if you hit a vein?having said that I will try my next 100 ius IM as well. This not the first time I've heard this so why not? I am currnetly on 5 ius Ed of jins and have seen some fairly impressive results sub q for four months almost five months. I should be able to tell the diff and will report back. I will start tomorrow.

[Deltasaurus]

i will follow this thread closely

[seeker11]

A lot of competitive bodybuilders in Holland are using IM recently. Their trainers support the above theory. That's why I was interested in how the knowledgeable members here thought about it, since I believe there is more knowledge about GH in the US than in Holland...

I hear people are getting rounder and fuller on IM injections. I've also read about one guy making remarkable results in one month IM, after using a small year subq with far lesser results.

I hope their is more debat on this here.

Have more people tried IM? Did they like it over subq?

[seeker11]

Yeah good read. One thing that caught my attention in bold was about hitting a vein. Although not advisable gh can be ran iv was well so why would it matter if you hit a vein?having said that I will try my next 100 ius IM as well. This not the first time I've heard this so why not? I am currnetly on 5 ius Ed of jins and have seen some fairly impressive results sub q for four months almost five months. I should be able to tell the diff and will report back. I will start tomorrow.

Your input is appreciated! Hope to hear the results.

[peteroy01]

ive done both and the results are too slow to tell which one works better.

[seeker11]

Another test:


Eur J Endocrinol. 2007 Jun;156(6):647-53. Links
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GH: dependence on route and dosage of administration.Keller A, Wu Z, Kratzsch J, Keller E, Blum WF, Kniess A, Preiss R, Teichert J, Strasburger CJ, Bidlingmaier M.
Hospital for Children and Adolescents, University of Leipzig, Oststr. 21-25, D-04317 Leipzig, Germany. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data after recombinant human GH (rhGH) administration in adults are scarce, but necessary to optimize replacement therapy and to detect doping. We examined pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and 20 kDa GH after injection of rhGH at different doses and routes of administration.

DESIGN: Open-label crossover study with single boluses of rhGH.

METHODS: Healthy trained subjects (10 males, 10 females) received bolus injections of rhGH on three occasions: 0.033 mg/kg s.c., 0.083 mg/kg s.c., and 0.033 mg/kg i.m. Concentrations of 22 and 20 kDa GH, IGF-I, and IGF-binding proteins (IGFBP)-3 were measured repeatedly before and up to 36 h after injection.

RESULTS: Serum GH maximal concentration (Cmax) and area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) were higher after i.m. than s.c. administration of 0.033 mg/kg (Cmax 35.5 and 12.0 microg/l; AUC 196.2 and 123.8). Cmax and AUC were higher in males than in females (P < 0.01) and pharmacodynamic changes were more pronounced. IGFBP-3 concentrations showed no dose dependency. In response to rhGH administration, 20 kDa GH decreased in females and remained suppressed for 14-18 h (low dose) and 30 h (high dose). In males, 20 kDa GH was undetectable at baseline and throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS: After rhGH administration, pharmacokinetic parameters are mainly influenced by route of administration, whereas pharmacodynamic variables and 20 kDa GH concentrations are determined mainly by gender. These differences need to be considered for therapeutic use and for detection of rhGH doping.

[fummins]

Its also being done via IV by some guys.

[thefunkybuddha]

IV...that takes some webbos.

[fummins]

Not really, once you read the science behind it.

[higherdesire]

Not really, once you read the science behind it.

any links to results on iv over im or subq? I am up for it if the results are much better

[fummins]

any links to results on iv over im or subq? I am up for it if the results are much better

Yeah, shoot me a pm.

[The Deuce]

OK whoa, Hold up..

What do we have here. 3 DIFFERENT METHODS of injecting HGH.

Sub Q- "The Normal, regular, Go-to Method of administration"

IM- "New Study showing it better results than Sub-q."

IV- "Umm what the hell?? Really??"

I'll start with the Sub-q Method, I am starting my year long to maybe permanent HGH regimen in 4 weeks.. The countdown has begun... and when I first started studying HGH this is the way that I was found to be most COMMON as far as administration of HGH is concerned. So I was going to go this route.. probably still will for at least the first 1000iu's I pass into my body... This is typically the best way for a Newbie to HGH and Peps to go with right?? THE SUBQ Method???


Now, IM... Can someone answer this for me.. HOW DO YOU GET THE HGH TO THE MUSCLE IF You are talking a 5/16" pin?? The usual length of a slin pin.. that BARELY would get through the fat.. I honestly don't think unless you were below 6% it would even permeate through the FAT layer and into the Muscle.. so to administer it this way.. what would you need to find different slin pin's?? Because I mean I don't see administering it with a 3cc Typical 1", 5/8", 1 1/4" or even the 1 1/2".. the smallest gauge I have ever used was 27gauge I believe.. so that's thicker than the typical slin pin which is like 31 or 33 gauge right??
How does administering this IM work? And according to this study.. it seems like it is BETTER. So I mean in essence, if I am using the SUB-Q method of administration then technically if there is a better, more cost beneficial, more utilization of this WONDERFUL compound "GH" then why would I even CONSIDER Sub-Q right??
So now I have become more confused than EVER.. I thought I had this all planned out.. and NOW it's like this MONKEY WRENCH has been thrown into this complex equation.

Ok, Last AND LEAST... Intravenously... ok first off.. HGH once you break the 3iu's per day it's recommended you split it into twice daily injections.... THAT'S TWO STICKS INTO THE VEIN.. Everyday.. Ummm.. correct Me If I am WRONG.. but what about TRACK MARKS.. wouldn't that happen?? It would make sense. When you inject IM you build up scar tissue and that's all that TRACK MARKS are is... BUILT UP SCAR TISSUE FROM REPEATED INJECTIONS...

Is this likely to happen when administering HGH this way?? Is this way More beneficial that IM or Sub-Q. I don't think I would ever be nervous doing it.. why you may ask.. well because when I think about it.. when you go to the hospital. what is it that they do when they need to administer MOST medications? They install an IV !! So obviously it's a safe and sanitary method if done correctly.. but on a real NOTE.. Who hear does this? If you don't mind me asking?? What are the benefits above the other possible administration methods.. if ANY??

I am just trying to cover all bases here. I am TRYING TO OBTAIN as Much Knowledge as possible on GH and other Peptides.. I.E.- IGF-1 Lr3, MGF, GHRP-6, CJC-1295... ETC... ETC..

So that is WHY this is intriguing me SO much.. because I WANT TO KNOW IT ALL.. Everything.. all of it that I can absorb.. it's important to me.. it's vital... it's essential..

So anyone willing to lend any insight to this since this THREAD was created.. it would be GREATLY Appreciated...



P.S.- Sorry for all the Caps and stuff... I know I know... I am working on it.. I swear.. it's just so difficult after typing like that for 12 years.. friggen hard habit to break alright?? LOL... Thanks Bros.

[Indymuscleguy]

I'm staying with subq injections...

[johnq]

I'm staying with subq injections...

me 2

[ScotchGuard]

I've been pinning subq for 8 months now and have had good results. I followed the general body of the community in pinning subq. If the body of the community goes IM and log good results, then I'll switch. I've always been conservative with the use of gear. I follow the general body of the community and so far, so good.

[Indymuscleguy]

I've been pinning subq for 8 months now and have had good results. I followed the general body of the community in pinning subq. If the body of the community goes IM and log good results, then I'll switch. I've always been conservative with the use of gear. I follow the general body of the community and so far, so good.

Bro...how many IU's are you running?

[peteroy01]

the reason why IM is better than SUBQ is the same reason that IV is better than IM. ok so the reason the fastest route possible into the body being the best way is because of the bodies negative feedback loop. we have one for everything. so if you inject subq then the GH takes longer to get to the blood stream because the area injected(between the fat and muscle) has less blood flow. and muscle has better blood flow then fat. so IV would be better cause you going straight to blood stream. to make things easier for me cause im freakin tired is to reread the 1st post and plug in IV where there is IM and IM where there is subq. its all about the speed at which the GH hits your system and clears. hope that helps a little.

[Indymuscleguy]

the reason why IM is better than SUBQ is the same reason that IV is better than IM. ok so the reason the fastest route possible into the body being the best way is because of the bodies negative feedback loop. we have one for everything. so if you inject subq then the GH takes longer to get to the blood stream because the area injected(between the fat and muscle) has less blood flow. and muscle has better blood flow then fat. so IV would be better cause you going straight to blood stream. to make things easier for me cause im freakin tired is to reread the 1st post and plug in IV where there is IM and IM where there is subq. its all about the speed at which the GH hits your system and clears. hope that helps a little.

Ok, that makes sense, but is there data or a research paper somewhere that confirms the above statement? I'm happy to switch to IM...

How many guys shoot IM?

[peteroy01]

i dont keep track of the studies that ive read. prolly should though. anyways, think of GH injection like people on a train. the people waiting to leave cant get on until the people that are on get off. the faster the people get off the faster the people can get on and the train can make another trip. IV would be people sprinting off the train like there was a bomb on it and subq would be like a bunch of people from a nursing home getting off. for males we have pulses of GH not a steady flow like females. and the natural pulse like effects is what we are after.

[Indymuscleguy]

i dont keep track of the studies that ive read. prolly should though. anyways, think of GH injection like people on a train. the people waiting to leave cant get on until the people that are on get off. the faster the people get off the faster the people can get on and the train can make another trip. IV would be people sprinting off the train like there was a bomb on it and subq would be like a bunch of people from a nursing home getting off. for males we have pulses of GH not a steady flow like females. and the natural pulse like effects is what we are after.

Peteroy- how many people do IM injections? Do you? They really said they saw results faster?

If other's who inject GH IM comment...I would consider...

[ScotchGuard]

I pin 5iu/ed subq. I'm not hung up on pinning IM or subq. I've never done IM with HGH but I'm really curious to see how it will affect me.

[TheArtist]

Can someone answer this for me.. HOW DO YOU GET THE HGH TO THE MUSCLE IF You are talking a 5/16" pin?? .

... simply put on a longer needle.
you can buy them separately at any length and guage you prefer.

[seeker11]

... simply put on a longer needle.
you can buy them separately at any length and guage you prefer.

I just pin in my biceps or shoulders; just push a little bit when injecting and you will enter the muscle there...

[seeker11]

Here is some other research to stir things up a bit more:

Exogenous 20K Growth Hormone (GH) Suppresses Endogenous 22K GH Secretion in Normal Men http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/2/601
.

This research shows that endogenous HGH can be suppressed for 24 hours. It also shows that exogenous HGH leaves the body after 4-6 hours; when injected before bedtime the first 1-2 hours endogenous HGH does its work, then 2-4 hours later exogenous HGH does its work.
So says the above research anyway.

We all know that most of the endogenous HGH is released during the first hours of sleep, and in that time HGH has its most pronounced effects.

So, if endogenous HGH is suppressed for 24 hours and HGH has it's most pronounced effects during sleep, wouldn't it be logical to (IM) inject before bedtime?

[InsaneInTheMembrane]

To the original post:

- I am sure IM will not provide nearly effectively the site specific fat burning benefit of injecting gh sub-q in the targeted areas
- If Mass gain is the goal, then IM would be noteworthy, but like someone said, that person's BF ought to be low enough
- IV is just inconvenient for most of us

[ScotchGuard]

Ok, I've been pinning 5iu/ed for 8months subq and feel no more sides. I wanted to see if IM was any better so I've been pinning IM the 5iu/ed dosage for the last 4 days. I feel sides again with 5iu/ed. I'm a believer.

[spooledup]

But doesn't IM increase the absorption rate?

In other words, the reason you may be experiencing sides is because you're getting a higher concentration over a shorter period of time.

[Indymuscleguy]

Ok, I've been pinning 5iu/ed for 8months subq and feel no more sides. I wanted to see if IM was any better so I've been pinning IM the 5iu/ed dosage for the last 4 days. I feel sides again with 5iu/ed. I'm a believer.

You belive the IM is better? I couldn't follow your post...

[ScotchGuard]

When I was injecting subq I felt strong but 5iu/ed wasn't enough to keep me feeling pumped like when I was at 6iu/ed to 8iu/ed. When I started to pin IM my muscles feel pumped all day. Yes, the absorption via IM injection is absorbed faster but I feel pumped all day. I only felt like this when I was using more HGH. That's why my conclusion is that IM injection, for me anyways, is the better way to go.

[seeker11]

When I was injecting subq I felt strong but 5iu/ed wasn't enough to keep me feeling pumped like when I was at 6iu/ed to 8iu/ed. When I started to pin IM my muscles feel pumped all day. Yes, the absorption via IM injection is absorbed faster but I feel pumped all day. I only felt like this when I was using more HGH. That's why my conclusion is that IM injection, for me anyways, is the better way to go.

Nice! Keep us updated please.

I'm also pinning IM in my biceps; there is the thinnest skin, so it's easier to penetrate the muscle with a slinpin.

I'm in week 2 of my first cycle 5IU 5/2 , so I can't post a comparison yet.

[SergioLMT]

When I was injecting subq I felt strong but 5iu/ed wasn't enough to keep me feeling pumped like when I was at 6iu/ed to 8iu/ed. When I started to pin IM my muscles feel pumped all day. Yes, the absorption via IM injection is absorbed faster but I feel pumped all day. I only felt like this when I was using more HGH. That's why my conclusion is that IM injection, for me anyways, is the better way to go.

Hey bro, I'm not sure if you mentioned before, but what size pin have you been using for your IM injections? I'm about to start an HGH run and you definitely have me curious to do the IM route!

[fummins]

Hey bro, I'm not sure if you mentioned before, but what size pin have you been using for your IM injections? I'm about to start an HGH run and you definitely have me curious to do the IM route!

I used my std subq pin, a 22 if I remember right.

[Garbanzo Dude]

I just can't imagine 9-15 months of daily IM injections, talk about trying to rotate spots!

[Indymuscleguy]

Any new updates?

[ScotchGuard]

I'm pinning 30ga insulin pins 1/2 inch long into my chest. I keep the injection area to about 1" diameter around the nipple. I still feel pumped. I got the pig (swine flu) but I kept pinning anyway. This pig stinks and I've lost some weight but even through it all my muscles feel pumped. What a thing to think about when I'm coughing up a lung. LOL

[mesogirl]

Help! Anyone have any problems with bruise-like spots not going away after HGH injection?

[thunderin]

Subq injects keep me looking more cut in my abdominal area.