CJC-1295/GHRP-6 doses/duration?

[SUPERMAN5039]

With you adding 2.5 ml of bac water to the 5mg GHRP-6 if you draw up to the 5 mark on your slin pin that will equal 100mcg's.

Ok please bare with me. On the slin pin the 5 mark is the 5th dash (10 mark) or the 50 mark?

[M302_Imola]

Ok please bare with me. On the slin pin the 5 mark is the 5th dash (10 mark) or the 50 mark?

The 5th dash line should be the 5 mark or at least it is on my 30G 1/2 cc slin pins. If you draw up to the 10 mark then it will be equivalent to 200mcg (and we all know saturation dose is 100mcg). So draw up to the 5 mark and you're set.

[jmo83]

So I just ordered 5 mg vial of GHRP-6 and 5 mg vial of CJC-1295 w/o DAC. My pins are 1/2 ml pins or 50 IU's. Not real sure how much BAC water to mix into a vial, and I'm not sure how many IU's to draw up to. I will be doing 100mcg of each one drawn up into the same pin. So...my question is: how much water do i mix into 5mg vial? And what IU mark do I draw up to for 100mcg's? Remember...my pins are in IU though. I'm new to all this.

[Norskblood]

Usually 1ml of back water is what you'd use, with a 5mg vial and a 0.5ml syringe wanting 100mcg draw 2IU or second tick mark.
You can use a peptide calculator so just google peptide calculator and it should take u to a helpful site I'm new to it all as well so can't post the URL it has helped me with various vial and syringe sizes

[M302_Imola]

So I just ordered 5 mg vial of GHRP-6 and 5 mg vial of CJC-1295 w/o DAC. My pins are 1/2 ml pins or 50 IU's. Not real sure how much BAC water to mix into a vial, and I'm not sure how many IU's to draw up to. I will be doing 100mcg of each one drawn up into the same pin. So...my question is: how much water do i mix into 5mg vial? And what IU mark do I draw up to for 100mcg's? Remember...my pins are in IU though. I'm new to all this.

Are you sure your CJC is 5mg? Most CJC comes as 2mg. Here's a quick break down on how to constitute:

if 2mg add 1ml of bac water and draw up to the 5 mark on your slin pin will equal 100mcg
if 5mg add 2.5ml of bac water and draw up to the 5 mark will equal 100mcg

[DanB]

I think a sticky/guide on how to constitute peptides is needed here, i wonder are we allowed to simply copy and paste from somewhere else?

[jmo83]

I will have to look. I know there is less powder in the CJC than in the GHRP. The vials are the same size. Again I'm brand new to this...I DON'T EVEN LIKE NEEDLES so this is a big step for me. Thanks for the info and I'll look and see.

[darkcrayz]

GotNoBlueMilk, DCannon, Swifto.

Hopefully one of you three can answer this.

I have been doing alot of reading on here and Datbtrue for Mod1-29 and GHRP 2. My question is why do you only run Mod 1-29 1x100mcg/day but GHRP2 3x100mcg/day? If running it at that protocol kicks out roughly 9iu GH then why wouldnt you run both 3x100mcg/day to get a better kick? That seems to be the one answer I can not find; or am I reading it wrong and you should be doing both 3xday?

Thanks.

[khalimadeath]

Somewhat new to the forum as far as posting. Ive done as much reading as i can, but i keep coming upon more terms every day and im still learning. Basically im considering taking GHRP-6 and stacking with CJC-1295 since that seems the most worth while cycle.. or maybe not?

My problems (why im thinking of cycling on something)

-Im 21 and have had a bad back for years. I hurt my shoulder about a year and a half ago doing dumb-bell incline press never been the same there. I feel like my body is aging extremely fast. My elbows pop when i work out. My shoulders creak like old floor boards. My back is stiff every morning and almost constantly in pain or uncomferting. Not to mention my knees..I stretch every morning and before every work out.

-Problem 2: Ive been lifting for 4~ years minimum of 3 days a week with proper form and lifting methods. I learned from my Father who has lifted all his life. Ive done my share of reading to ensure im getting the most benefit from every work out. My "lift stats" have gone up and down constantly especially in my chest. For example: I max'ed out on flat Bench press at 275 6 months ago, Now I struggle with 205. My weight has been stuck at about 165lbs for years. Ive bulked and Cut but I only gain fat in my stomach. Ive narrowed it down to crappy genes..

Basically im reaching out because BB.com is pretty much useless and I think a cycle of peptides can really help with my problems. Ive been unable to find a "dumbed down answer" On what to get, how much to get, What needles to get, and how much to take.


Any help would be greatly appreciated wether its links to other helpful threads i haven't found yet or PM me if you have seen or had similar problems.

Thanks.

[GotNoBlueMilk]

GotNoBlueMilk, DCannon, Swifto.

Hopefully one of you three can answer this.

I have been doing alot of reading on here and Datbtrue for Mod1-29 and GHRP 2. My question is why do you only run Mod 1-29 1x100mcg/day but GHRP2 3x100mcg/day? If running it at that protocol kicks out roughly 9iu GH then why wouldnt you run both 3x100mcg/day to get a better kick? That seems to be the one answer I can not find; or am I reading it wrong and you should be doing both 3xday?

Thanks.

Why do you think you run Mod GRF only once a day? You always stack Mod GRF with GHRP. So if you do one 3 times a day you do both three times a day.

[GotNoBlueMilk]

Somewhat new to the forum as far as posting. Ive done as much reading as i can, but i keep coming upon more terms every day and im still learning. Basically im considering taking GHRP-6 and stacking with CJC-1295 since that seems the most worth while cycle.. or maybe not?

My problems (why im thinking of cycling on something)

-Im 21

I got no further than you are 21. I think messing with hormones at the age of 21 is not wise.

Obviously, it is your decision on what you wil and will not do, just as it is my decision on what I will and will not do. I will not help you.

[khalimadeath]

I got no further than you are 21. I think messing with hormones at the age of 21 is not wise.

Obviously, it is your decision on what you wil and will not do, just as it is my decision on what I will and will not do. I will not help you.

That was one of my questions as well. Is GHRP going to mess with my GH as much as HGH would? I don't think test would help with any of my problems as size is something im going to have to accept i will never have. But not having back and joint problems is something i want to rid of.

[Bulkn]

I train monday-friday and have weekends off. On the weekends do you guys think it would be better to take my ghrp-6 and cjc in the morning as usual and then just do a double-dose at night before bed?

[Lemonada8]

How are you liking it?

The peptides shouldnt mess up natural production due to it regulates natural release of GH. In males GH is released in spikes, in females its more of a constant release so by taking peptides it increases the spikes which simulates natural release. Dats forum is a wealth of knowledge on the topic, i have just been reading and reading and reading there lolz

I was doing cjc1295 and GHRP6 at 100mcg 2x a day and before bed i was taking 2 grams GABA. It was definately working i felt i was staying leaner and with working out much less that i want i still was keeping some decent size. Now that i have stopped recently, ive noticed that my fat is slowly increasing around my mid section without much of a change in lifestyle (if anything, i am doing more exercise cuz of city league bball)... I plan to get back on them soon and back to my original plan of working out and diet, esp cuz of winter break is coming up and i know what school is like, so i can manage it much better.

[khalimadeath]

How are you liking it?

The peptides shouldnt mess up natural production due to it regulates natural release of GH. In males GH is released in spikes, in females its more of a constant release so by taking peptides it increases the spikes which simulates natural release. Dats forum is a wealth of knowledge on the topic, i have just been reading and reading and reading there lolz

I was doing cjc1295 and GHRP6 at 100mcg 2x a day and before bed i was taking 2 grams GABA. It was definately working i felt i was staying leaner and with working out much less that i want i still was keeping some decent size. Now that i have stopped recently, ive noticed that my fat is slowly increasing around my mid section without much of a change in lifestyle (if anything, i am doing more exercise cuz of city league bball)... I plan to get back on them soon and back to my original plan of working out and diet, esp cuz of winter break is coming up and i know what school is like, so i can manage it much better.

So being young like i am (21) ghrp wont affect my natural gh like hgh? Im not looking for size but more seeking the joint rejuvenation and energy benefit from it. I feel like im a 40 year old (no offense to anyone)..

[M302_Imola]

I train monday-friday and have weekends off. On the weekends do you guys think it would be better to take my ghrp-6 and cjc in the morning as usual and then just do a double-dose at night before bed?

What do you mean by "double-dose"? If you mean inject twice the amount (200mcg cjc/ghrp-6) before bed then I wouldn't advise that. 100mcg of each is the saturation dose so you won't see much benefit from injecting 200mcg of each at one time (waste of product in my opinion). Just stick with your morning injection and before bed.

[Bulkn]

What do you mean by "double-dose"? If you mean inject twice the amount (200mcg cjc/ghrp-6) before bed then I wouldn't advise that. 100mcg of each is the saturation dose so you won't see much benefit from injecting 200mcg of each at one time (waste of product in my opinion). Just stick with your morning injection and before bed.

True, some of it will go to waste but on non training days do you think all i need is morning and night?

[M302_Imola]

True, some of it will go to waste but on non training days do you think all i need is morning and night?

That should suffice...if you get the opportunity for a 3rd pin then go for it (if you have plenty of product).

[Swifto]

How are you liking it?

The peptides shouldnt mess up natural production due to it regulates natural release of GH. In males GH is released in spikes, in females its more of a constant release so by taking peptides it increases the spikes which simulates natural release. Dats forum is a wealth of knowledge on the topic, i have just been reading and reading and reading there lolz

I was doing cjc1295 and GHRP6 at 100mcg 2x a day and before bed i was taking 2 grams GABA. It was definately working i felt i was staying leaner and with working out much less that i want i still was keeping some decent size. Now that i have stopped recently, ive noticed that my fat is slowly increasing around my mid section without much of a change in lifestyle (if anything, i am doing more exercise cuz of city league bball)... I plan to get back on them soon and back to my original plan of working out and diet, esp cuz of winter break is coming up and i know what school is like, so i can manage it much better.

More misinformation.


If you're talking about infant males/females, "These results demonstrate similar pulsatile GH release in male and female premature infants at a mean age of 32-33 weeks" as shown here. So no difference.

Women's GH pullsitile bursts are not "more constant", infact, "The sex differences in GH axis activity are highly specific mechanistically, and namely entail the mass of GH secreted per burst (greater in women than men), and the orderliness of the 24-hour GH release process (less orderly pattern in women)"as shown in the abstract below.



Growth Hormone & IGF Research
Volume 8, Supplement 2, April 1998, Pages 49-59
doi:10.1016/S1096-6374(98)80024-5 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Cited By in Scopus (37)
Permissions & Reprints

Neuroendocrine control of pulsatile growth hormone release in the human: relationship with gender

J.D. Veldhuis Corresponding Author Contact Information, a
Purchase
a Division of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Science Foundation Center for Biological Timing, University of Virginia HealthSciences Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

Available online 20 April 2005.
Summary

Gender has multiple significant influences on the humanGH axis in the premenopausal age group (Table 1), and attenuates by approximately 50% the negative impact of age on daily GH secretion rates, the inverse association between total adiposity and GH production, and the positive effect of increased physical fitness on GH secretion. The sex differences in GH axis activity are highly specific mechanistically, and namely entail the mass of GH secreted per burst (greater in women than men), and the orderliness of the 24-hour GH release process (less orderly pattern in women). Moreover, physiological regulation of the GH-IGF-I axis is evident within the follicular phase of the normal human menstrual cycle, wherein mean serum GH and plasma IGF-I concentrations rise concurrently with increased oestradiol secretion in the preovulatory phase. Oestrogen, directly or indirectly (e.g. via long-term changes in visceral and subcutaneous fat distribution), serves as the proximate mediator of many gender differences, and probably mediates most of the acute sex-steroid effects of both testosterone and oestradiol on the human GH-IGF-I axis.

In conclusion, oestrogen regulates the physiological output of the GH-IGF-I axis both quantitatively (daily GH secretion rate) and qualitatively (organization or orderliness of GH release). The actions of oestrogen are probably achieved via alterations in GHRH and somatostatin activities and their reciprocal interactions. Current evidence concerning the role of oestrogen favours an increase in somatotroph responsiveness to GHRH, with or without decreased effects of somatostatin. Whether putative GHRPs, galanin, etc., participate in the potent amplifying actions of oestrogen on the GH axis is not known. Thus, gender and sex steroids are potent pathophysiological regulators of the orderliness and pulsatile mass of GH secreted in humans.


The reason I posted the entire abstract and not linked, is because I want people to learn how important estrogen is in GH/IGF synthesis.

[Lemonada8]

^ Really now? What did i say since it seems to always be misconstrued.
Males have more "spike" like releases of GH (spike refering to how it looks like on a graph)
Females have more of a "constant" release (again, refering on how it looks on a graph)

Here you go, and not infants.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/283/5/E1008.full

PITUITARY GH SECRETORY PATTERN in humans and other species is highly pulsatile. In rats, this pattern is sexually dimorphic; males have regular high-amplitude pulses and relatively low interpulse growth hormone (GH) levels, and females have lower amplitude pulses and higher interpulse levels

We (18) and others (44, 51) have demonstrated that GH secretion in adults is sexually dimorphic. Women have more continuous secretion of GH (18), and this provides a conceptual framework for potential gender-specific effects of GH



and another.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...7/?tool=pubmed

. During the baseline study, men had large nocturnal GH pulses and relatively small pulses during the rest of the day. In contrast, women had more continuous GH secretion and more frequent GH pulses that were of more uniform size.


The study abstract you posted has NOTHING to do with gender differences, all it says is that the mass of Gh secreted (basically amount) is higher in females than males, and that its not as regular as male gh secretion. has nothing to do with what i stated previously.

[Swifto]

^ Really now? What did i say since it seems to always be misconstrued.
Males have more "spike" like releases of GH (spike refering to how it looks like on a graph)
Females have more of a "constant" release (again, refering on how it looks on a graph)

Here you go, and not infants.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/283/5/E1008.full

PITUITARY GH SECRETORY PATTERN in humans and other species is highly pulsatile. In rats, this pattern is sexually dimorphic; males have regular high-amplitude pulses and relatively low interpulse growth hormone (GH) levels, and females have lower amplitude pulses and higher interpulse levels

We (18) and others (44, 51) have demonstrated that GH secretion in adults is sexually dimorphic. Women have more continuous secretion of GH (18), and this provides a conceptual framework for potential gender-specific effects of GH

"To address this question, we administered the same daily intravenous dose of GH (0.5 mg · m−2 · day−1) for 8 days in different patterns to nine GH-deficient adults."

Did you miss that bit?

and another.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...7/?tool=pubmed

. During the baseline study, men had large nocturnal GH pulses and relatively small pulses during the rest of the day. In contrast, women had more continuous GH secretion and more frequent GH pulses that were of more uniform size.


The study abstract you posted has NOTHING to do with gender differences, all it says is that the mass of Gh secreted (basically amount) is higher in females than males, and that its not as regular as male gh secretion. has nothing to do with what i stated previously.

"We have compared pulsatile GH secretion profiles in young men and women in the baseline state and during a continuous intravenous infusion of recombinant human insulin-like growth factor I (rhIGF-I)."

Again, did you miss that bit?

I have outlined the differences in healthy males and females (women premenstral) and you've done what exactly...?

Take your blinkers off and try reading all of the study, specifically its "methods", not just what you want to read to "prove a point".

[Swifto]

The study abstract you posted has NOTHING to do with gender differences, all it says is that the mass of Gh secreted (basically amount) is higher in females than males, and that its not as regular as male gh secretion. has nothing to do with what i stated previously.

Neuroendocrine control of pulsatile growth hormone release in the human: relationship with gender

Tell me you're joking.

Its states that the AMOUNT of a single GH burst is larger (in females).

It states the FREQUENCY is "less orderly" indicating, less constant.

You're telling me you dont understand that and that it doesn't contradict your previous statement of, "In males GH is released in spikes, in females its more of a constant release..."?

[Lemonada8]

Neuroendocrine control of pulsatile growth hormone release in the human: relationship with gender
Tell me you're joking.
Its states that the AMOUNT of a single GH burst is larger (in females).
It states the FREQUENCY is "less orderly" indicating, less constant.
You're telling me you dont understand that and that it doesn't contradict your previous statement of, "In males GH is released in spikes, in females its more of a constant release..."?

Orderly has nothing to do with 'constancy'. It is saying that there is no 'order' to the GH pulses in women when compared to men. Men have a large nocturnal GH pulse with much smaller pulses throughout the day. Women, on the other hand, have smaller amplitude pulses but a higher interpulse level throughout the day. they use 'orderly' because it doesnt follow the large nocturnal pulse (aka spike) like shown in males. Basically, it doesnt have a pattern like males show, so it has less order to pulses, so it is 'less orderly'. This is the general consensus on GH pulses. So no, it doesnt contradict my original statement. I really dont have time to try and argue this, im in the midst of finals. If you want a better expanation, go read dats board on the pulsation topic.

If you go back to the 2nd article i posted and look at figure 2, it is showing exactly what i am saying. Ill post an image of that figure. Here is what it says in the text about it. And since its a full free text from pubmed, it should be accessible to everyone. I forgot to add this: The subjects recieved saline infusion.


"The mean (6SE) GH concentrations for the
eight men and eight women are given in Fig. 2. The 24-h profiles
in men were characterized by the presence of a dominant
nocturnal pulse with much smaller pulses at other times of the
day. In contrast, GH secretion in women was more continuous,
with pulses of similar amplitude throughout the 24 h."

"We have compared pulsatile GH secretion profiles in young men and women in the baseline state and during a continuous intravenous infusion of recombinant human insulin -like growth factor I (rhIGF-I)."
Again, did you miss that bit?
I have outlined the differences in healthy males and females (women premenstral) and you've done what exactly...?
Take your blinkers off and try reading all of the study, specifically its "methods", not just what you want to read to "prove a point".

Well, since IGF1 is a negative feedback to GH release, and as shown below, exogenous IGF1 seems to block the negative feedbach for GH release. So without that feedback it still shows what i said.
Take your own advice and take the blinkers off. And women premenstral... seriously? thats pre-puberty, so not really applicable here, and same with the males used.. in pre-puberty. Infact they were Premature Infants...
At the end of that study, it acknowledges that aspect and provides a possible reason with not having the right response to negative feedback amount of somatostatin.

I saw what you are trying to say about estrogen and GH but the part you posted didnt really do much at all. I copied and pasted a section from the route of oestrogen delivery, which i think would be better understood by those here reading what is posted and w/o access to the full study.

Oral administration of oestrogen tends to decrease plasma IGF-I levels and increase GH secretion.47- 51 In
contrast, in some studies, transdertnal oestrogen delivery did not stimulate the GH axis. 52•53 A more recent
investigation, however, using higher doses of transdermal oestrogen, found that both oral and
percutaneous oestradiol stimulate pulsatile GH secretion and reduce circulating IGF-I concentrations. 51 Thus,
current evidence suggests that appropriate amounts of oral and transdermal oestrogen can diminish IGF-1
negative feedback by redudng plasma IGF-I concentrations, and perhaps thereby augment pulsatile GH
secretion. However, intravenous infusion of IGF-I has not been given to test this hypothesis directly. Thus,
additional actions of oestrogen are not excluded; for example, oestrogen may increase the central drive of the
GH axis via GHRH, GHRPs, etc. (with or without concomitantly decreased somatostatin tone). In addition, the preovulatory phase of the normal menstrual cycle and the maximal pubertal growth phase are both marked by hypersomatotrophism (increased mean serum GH
concentrations and daily GI-l secretion rates) and concomitantly higher plasma IGF-I concentrations.17•54
This pattern is seen not only in these two physiological states in women, and after testosterone injection in
men, 55-57 but also in acromegaly or in states in which the GH axis is driven pharmacologically (e.g. after pulsatile
or continuous GHRH infusions). (For review, see Giustina and Veldhuis.3) Thus, whereas a component of the
mechanism of action of orally replaced oestrogen is via presumptive partial withdrawal of the negative-feedback effect of IGF-I, the physiologically hyperoestrogenaemic states of the late follicular phase in young women and
during maximal growth in pubertal girls apparently Gender and GH release stimulate the hypothalamic-pituitary- IGF-1 axis centrally,
resulting in concerted increases in both GH and IGP-1.

Basically saying that estrogen can diminish some of the negative feedback of GH regulation, resulting in increased GH release.
This was also suggested in another study, because it compared the menstrual cycle and associated estrogen levels. And later in the menstrual cycle, when estrogen increases the GH pulses become more frequent rather than a larger amplitude.

[Swifto]

Orderly has nothing to do with 'constancy'. It is saying that there is no 'order' to the GH pulses in women when compared to men. Men have a large nocturnal GH pulse with much smaller pulses throughout the day. Women, on the other hand, have smaller amplitude pulses but a higher interpulse level throughout the day. they use 'orderly' because it doesnt follow the large nocturnal pulse (aka spike) like shown in males. Basically, it doesnt have a pattern like males show, so it has less order to pulses, so it is 'less orderly'. This is the general consensus on GH pulses. So no, it doesnt contradict my original statement. I really dont have time to try and argue this, im in the midst of finals. If you want a better expanation, go read dats board on the pulsation topic.

I also do not have time to argue the definition of "constant". Clearly, you dont understand.

Debating with you is like banging my f*cking head against a wall whilst you "try to prove a point".

Go knock yourself out.

Or better, go give women advice on Winstrol and "how they cant take it becuase dont have DHT receptors".

If you go back to the 2nd article i posted and look at figure 2, it is showing exactly what i am saying. Ill post an image of that figure. Here is what it says in the text about it. And since its a full free text from pubmed, it should be accessible to everyone. I forgot to add this: The subjects recieved saline infusion.


I've pointed out to flaws in your "studies", yet you seem to ignore them or think that being "GH deficient" and being given "IV GH" has no impact here.

You dont think studies in healthy adult males and females are relevant and wrong.

Are you GH dificient and do you inject IV GH?

I've just hit another brick wall.

"The mean (6SE) GH concentrations for the
eight men and eight women are given in Fig. 2. The 24-h profiles
in men were characterized by the presence of a dominant
nocturnal pulse with much smaller pulses at other times of the
day. In contrast, GH secretion in women was more continuous,
with pulses of similar amplitude throughout the 24 h."

See above.

Well, since IGF1 is a negative feedback to GH release, and as shown below, exogenous IGF1 seems to block the negative feedbach for GH release. So without that feedback it still shows what i said.
Take your own advice and take the blinkers off. And women premenstral... seriously? thats pre-puberty, so not really applicable here, and same with the males used.. in pre-puberty. Infact they were Premature Infants...
At the end of that study, it acknowledges that aspect and provides a possible reason with not having the right response to negative feedback amount of somatostatin.

I'll come back to this later as I'm on my phone.

Again, your study has its flaws.

"premenstral" was a typo, I meant "premenomausal", but you didnt even spot that did you. The study I posted was on "premenomausal".

Did you actually take the time to read the study?

I saw what you are trying to say about estrogen and GH but the part you posted didnt really do much at all. I copied and pasted a section from the route of oestrogen delivery, which i think would be better understood by those here reading what is posted and w/o access to the full study.

I have more info. on this, again, I'm on my phone...

Basically saying that estrogen can diminish some of the negative feedback of GH regulation, resulting in increased GH release.
This was also suggested in another study, because it compared the menstrual cycle and associated estrogen levels. And later in the menstrual cycle, when estrogen increases the GH pulses become more frequent rather than a larger amplitude.

bolds

[Lemonada8]

How about you go fvck your self and your arrogance

fvck this place

mods cant even argue w/o putting several insults in their posts, great maturity guys

and no the study you posted was on PREMATURE INFANTS! Talk about fckin hypocrisy

or·der·ly (ôrdr-l)
adj.
1.
a. Free from disorder; neat: an orderly room.
b. Having a systematic arrangement: an orderly universe.
2. Marked by or adhering to method or system: orderly in the upkeep of his rooms.
3. Devoid of violence or disruption; peaceful: an orderly transition of governments.

here u go the defination of orderly. Again, exactly how i used it and how they used it in the study comparing it to men and their primarily nocturnal GH release

con·stant (knstnt)
adj.
1. Continually occurring; persistent.
2. Regularly recurring: plagued by constant interruptions.
3. Unchanging in nature, value, or extent; invariable. See Synonyms at continual.
4. Steadfast in purpose, loyalty, or affection; faithful. See Synonyms at faithful.

Again, a defination of constant. Regularlly recurring. So refering to women and how they DONT have a primarily nocturnal pulse (again in releation to men) that its more of a CONSTANT release during the day.

So less orderly means not a pattern of big, small, big, small as seen in MEN, it is more of a 'pulse, pulse, pulse, for women with not nearly the difference between pulses. AKA constant.

learn ur fvckin english
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...df/1020153.pdf
Ill even post a word document of this article, if people wanna read and see that YOU are wrong again. guess i cant. too big

You talk about 'healthy' men and women, and you post about fukin preme infants.
Like i said, the 2nd study is HEALTHY MEN AND WOMEN.
read the fvckin methods huh? here u go, copy and paste

Subjects.
The research protocol was approved by the Institutional
Review Board and the General Clinical Research Center Operating Subcommittee of the University of Michigan Hospitals. Written consent
was obtained from each subject before their participation. Eight healthy men and eight healthy women were recruited. The two
groups were of similar age (23.5 62.9 vs. 25.2 64.0 yr; mean 6 SD;men vs. women) and body mass index (23.8
0.9 vs. 22.9 62.9 kg/m2).All had unremarkable medical histories and physical examinations.
Measurements of renal, hepatic, and hematological function in all
subjects were normal. None of the subjects were on any medications.
Only women with regular spontaneous menstrual cycles were included.
Women were studied during the early follicular phase of the
cycle and menstrual status was further validated by measurement of
serum estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P) concentrations.
Protocol.
The subjects were admitted to the GCRC the evening

There was both a gender
effect (P 5 0.002) and a time effect (P 5 0.0001). Women
had more pulses than men and the number of GH pulses was
greatest for both genders between 2300 and 0200 h. There was
also an interaction between the gender and time effects (P 5
0.003), indicating that the pattern of GH pulse frequency was
different between the two groups, with pulse frequency more
evenly distributed over the 24-h study period in women. The
analysis of the deconvolution net input (BTI) within these
same time blocks is given in the bottom panel. There was a
gender effect (P 5 0.004) and a time effect (P 5 0.0001) as
well as a gender–time interaction (P 5 0.0005) for BTI. The
strong gender–time interaction was a result of a much greater
time effect in men (P 5 0.0001) than in women (P 5 0.05). The
GH input at each time block, except during the expected nocturnal
augmentation of GH, was greater in women than in
men, suggesting that women secrete GH more continuously
throughout the day, whereas men have predominantly nocturnal
GH secretion. This was further demonstrated by deconvolution
analysis, which estimated that active secretion occurred
42+/-4% of the time in women but only 24+/-2% of the time in
men (P 5 0.003).

Here ill pull some quotes from YOUR PERFECT ARTILCE, that was a review and said NOTHING on the topic that i had said.

The sex differences in GH axis activity are
highly specific mechanistically, and namely entail the
mass of GH secreted per burst (greater in women than
men), and the orderliness of the 24-hour GH release
process (less orderly pattern in women)

See that? LESS ORDERLY PATTERN! Hmm... Compared to what? men and their nocturnal burst? Yup

Why dont YOU read the fvckin articles, try to understand them then post something instead of finding ONE article about fvckin preme babies saying 'oh you are wrong in saying about GH in gender difference b/c this ONE article says so" and then preach to me on relavence? Wow...

Even tried to go with what you said about estrogen, cuz "The reason I posted the entire abstract and not linked, is because I want people to learn how important estrogen is in GH/IGF synthesis." but the abstract said SH!T about that...

Grow up, admit you are wrong and go fvck yourself

FUnny you bring up the winny comment, go back and read my following post, saying " oh i didnt think of that etc... " basically admiting Yes i was wrong thanks for the info. Something YOU cant seem to do.
but others prolly wont, and truely i dont give a fvck they will follow the 'big bad mod' cuz u have a special colored name and 'moderator' as ur title. Congrats. You are NO different that AR cuz, hmm... you do alot of reading studies then try to make sense of them then teach it to others.. exactly what he did (minus the drama crap) and eveyrone discredits him because of that same fact that he has NO experience in the area (other than personal experience) which is the same case as you. So congrats on being another dumba$$ who thinks he is king sh!t at reading articles and giving advice when you are really taking a shot in the dark based on what you read.

Fvck off

[Hondarocks]

I got some good advice from Imola, I was not getting the hunger pains from the GHRP2 at 100mcg, so I went up to 200mcg and I really get the added appetite enhan***ent and can house any meal I need to now. Its beyond the saturation but I need to to get the hunger, otherwise its hard to eat.

[Hondarocks]

Its sad, this once great thread has turned into a mess

[Swifto]

How about you go fvck your self and your arrogance

fvck this place

mods cant even argue w/o putting several insults in their posts, great maturity guys

and no the study you posted was on PREMATURE INFANTS! Talk about fckin hypocrisy

here u go the defination of orderly. Again, exactly how i used it and how they used it in the study comparing it to men and their primarily nocturnal GH release


Again, a defination of constant. Regularlly recurring. So refering to women and how they DONT have a primarily nocturnal pulse (again in releation to men) that its more of a CONSTANT release during the day.

So less orderly means not a pattern of big, small, big, small as seen in MEN, it is more of a 'pulse, pulse, pulse, for women with not nearly the difference between pulses. AKA constant.

learn ur fvckin english
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...df/1020153.pdf
Ill even post a word document of this article, if people wanna read and see that YOU are wrong again. guess i cant. too big

You talk about 'healthy' men and women, and you post about fukin preme infants.
Like i said, the 2nd study is HEALTHY MEN AND WOMEN.
read the fvckin methods huh? here u go, copy and paste







Here ill pull some quotes from YOUR PERFECT ARTILCE, that was a review and said NOTHING on the topic that i had said.



See that? LESS ORDERLY PATTERN! Hmm... Compared to what? men and their nocturnal burst? Yup

Why dont YOU read the fvckin articles, try to understand them then post something instead of finding ONE article about fvckin preme babies saying 'oh you are wrong in saying about GH in gender difference b/c this ONE article says so" and then preach to me on relavence? Wow...

Even tried to go with what you said about estrogen, cuz "The reason I posted the entire abstract and not linked, is because I want people to learn how important estrogen is in GH/IGF synthesis." but the abstract said SH!T about that...

Grow up, admit you are wrong and go fvck yourself

FUnny you bring up the winny comment, go back and read my following post, saying " oh i didnt think of that etc... " basically admiting Yes i was wrong thanks for the info. Something YOU cant seem to do.
but others prolly wont, and truely i dont give a fvck they will follow the 'big bad mod' cuz u have a special colored name and 'moderator' as ur title. Congrats. You are NO different that AR cuz, hmm... you do alot of reading studies then try to make sense of them then teach it to others.. exactly what he did (minus the drama crap) and eveyrone discredits him because of that same fact that he has NO experience in the area (other than personal experience) which is the same case as you. So congrats on being another dumba$$ who thinks he is king sh!t at reading articles and giving advice when you are really taking a shot in the dark based on what you read.

Fvck off

If you're able to still read this and not banned, read...


Am J Physiol. 1996 Jan;270(1 Pt 1):E107-15.

Females secrete growth hormone with more process irregularity than males in both humans and rats.
Pincus SM, Gevers EF, Robinson IC, van den Berg G, Roelfsema F, Hartman ML, Veldhuis JD.
SourceDivision of Neurophysiology and Neuropharmacology, National Institute for Medical Research, London, United Kingdom.

Abstract
In humans, serum growth hormone (GH) concentrations are significantly higher in women than in men, but the neuroendocrine mechanisms that underlie such gender differences are not known. We compared normal episodic GH secretion in males and females in three distinct settings: two human studies employing quite different assay techniques (immunoradiometric assay and a high-sensitivity immunofluorimetric method) and a rat study. To quantify the amount of regularity in data, we utilized approximate entropy (ApEn), a scale- and model-independent statistic. In each study, females exhibited significantly greater statistical irregularity in GH concentration series than their male counterparts (P < 10(-3) for each human study, P < 10(-6) for the rat study), implying that mass and mode of GH secretion are regulated differently in males and females. The regularity comparisons indicated complete gender separation (100% specificity and sensitivity) for the rat study and nearly complete separation for the immunofluorimetric assay study. The consistency and statistical significance of these findings suggest that this gender difference may be broadly based within higher animals and that this may be readily evaluated objectively by analysis of ApEn.

PMID:8772482[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[jimmyinkedup]

How about you go fvck your self and your arrogance

fvck this place

Talk about fckin hypocrisy

learn ur fvckin english

u talk about 'healthy' men and women, and you post about fukin preme infants.

Why dont YOU read the fvckin articles,Grow up, admit you are wrong and go fvck yourself

and truely i dont give a fvck they will follow the 'big bad mod' cuz u have a special colored name and 'moderator' as ur title.

You are NO different that AR cuz, hmm... you do alot of reading studies then try to make sense of them then teach it to others.. exactly what he did (minus the drama crap) and eveyrone discredits him because of that same fact that he has NO experience in the area (other than personal experience) which is the same case as you. So congrats on being another dumba$$ who thinks he is king sh!t at reading articles and giving advice when you are really taking a shot in the dark based on what you read.

Fvck off

Is this real life?

In all seriousness lets just ignore all these inappropriate insults and so on because im sure they will be dealt with. Lets look for a minute at your AR statement. Since you brought it up , of ALL the people I have ever seen post here you remind me of that idiot more than anyone. He , much like you, didnt exercise due dillgence beofre posting his often off base contentions or theories. He also would take irrelavent studies on animals with inapplicable data and dosages and try to apply them to humans - even if perfectly relavent human studies existed (sound familiar ??). He would do or say anything to back up often inaccurate statements he made with little to no regard for passing on relavent , effective real world applicable info to people - it was all about him. He would jump in to a topic with the first study he googled and make his half assed interpretation of it and spout of BS accordingly. Then the thread turned into an argument of him having to be correct , arguing with someone like Marcus or Swifto that actually knew wtf they were talking about. You are so like him its downright scary.

You know people might see this post and say oh staff is backing each other up blah blah blah. The fact is I would post this to you if you made thie above post to anyone who contributed and added to the practical and scientific knowledge of this board half as much as Swifto does - staff or not

Why you cant take a step back and at least somewhat check your ego at the door, realiuze we all learn from one another here and that ultimately an accurate conclusion means we all learn. Thats more important than u being right.

[Hondarocks]

I think people forget everyone is on steroids ..and there is such a thing as roid rage . I think people should cut each other some slack, we are not dealing with bullets or bombs exploding here.

[BG]

Seems like you have an issue with the board so it seems like you should move onto another. Your well on your way to a time out so I suggest you rethink your membership here.

How about you go fvck your self and your arrogance

fvck this place

mods cant even argue w/o putting several insults in their posts, great maturity guys

and no the study you posted was on PREMATURE INFANTS! Talk about fckin hypocrisy

here u go the defination of orderly. Again, exactly how i used it and how they used it in the study comparing it to men and their primarily nocturnal GH release


Again, a defination of constant. Regularlly recurring. So refering to women and how they DONT have a primarily nocturnal pulse (again in releation to men) that its more of a CONSTANT release during the day.

So less orderly means not a pattern of big, small, big, small as seen in MEN, it is more of a 'pulse, pulse, pulse, for women with not nearly the difference between pulses. AKA constant.

learn ur fvckin english
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...df/1020153.pdf
Ill even post a word document of this article, if people wanna read and see that YOU are wrong again. guess i cant. too big

You talk about 'healthy' men and women, and you post about fukin preme infants.
Like i said, the 2nd study is HEALTHY MEN AND WOMEN.
read the fvckin methods huh? here u go, copy and paste







Here ill pull some quotes from YOUR PERFECT ARTILCE, that was a review and said NOTHING on the topic that i had said.



See that? LESS ORDERLY PATTERN! Hmm... Compared to what? men and their nocturnal burst? Yup

Why dont YOU read the fvckin articles, try to understand them then post something instead of finding ONE article about fvckin preme babies saying 'oh you are wrong in saying about GH in gender difference b/c this ONE article says so" and then preach to me on relavence? Wow...

Even tried to go with what you said about estrogen, cuz "The reason I posted the entire abstract and not linked, is because I want people to learn how important estrogen is in GH/IGF synthesis." but the abstract said SH!T about that...

Grow up, admit you are wrong and go fvck yourself

FUnny you bring up the winny comment, go back and read my following post, saying " oh i didnt think of that etc... " basically admiting Yes i was wrong thanks for the info. Something YOU cant seem to do.
but others prolly wont, and truely i dont give a fvck they will follow the 'big bad mod' cuz u have a special colored name and 'moderator' as ur title. Congrats. You are NO different that AR cuz, hmm... you do alot of reading studies then try to make sense of them then teach it to others.. exactly what he did (minus the drama crap) and eveyrone discredits him because of that same fact that he has NO experience in the area (other than personal experience) which is the same case as you. So congrats on being another dumba$$ who thinks he is king sh!t at reading articles and giving advice when you are really taking a shot in the dark based on what you read.

Fvck off

[Lemonada8]

Seems like you have an issue with the board so it seems like you should move onto another. Your well on your way to a time out so I suggest you rethink your membership here.

nope not a problem with the board, just a problem with how responding arguements from swifto and jimmy have to include insults and continued arrogance even when i point out them being hypocrites. And how 'my studies' are irrelevant according to them but when i point out flaws in their studies, im still in the wrong.

Even when the article i posted says EXACTLY what i was saying, there are still flaws apparently.

funny jimmy talks about 'inappropriate insults' when he did the exact same thing, same with swifto and his 'read the whole study bs'

they fail to actually debate and leave ego's and insults at the door, but bring them in and try to discredit by using insults. great maturity there, and in any structured debate anywhere the use of pure insults show immaturity and lack of knowledge

and if u did read the 2nd article i posted originaly, look at figure 6 where it compared Controls to the IGF1 infused. The controls (aka normal) show exactly what i was saying. but that was over looked by just reading the abstract and using that to 'prove' my study has flaws. ha

and jimmys fav

[darkcrayz]

swifto,

i read through your posts with the article links but might of missed the following:

i have read a user of pharma grade gh takes 6 months (approx) to see the results. Is the same true for peptides or since its pulses gh instead of gh release do the affects/results kick in faster?

im curious to see when ill notice some major changes, due to finances i am running

upon waking 50mcg mod 129 w/ day 100mcg ghrp 2
mid day 50mcg mod 129 w/ day 100mcg ghrp 2
before bed 100mcg mod 129 w/ 100mcg ghrp 2

im 275lb, 6'1", approx 20% body fat based off the 7 point caliper test; so i know i can handle the saturation.

thanks.

[lovbyts]

Lots of great information from everyone. If you have any questions it's because you didn't take time to read all the post. Most every question has been answered in this thread and spelled out so even us simpletons can understand it.

Thank you gentlemen.

[gonzo6183]

Great read, Ive been taking 3 x 100mcg GHRP6 and 3 x 100mcg Mod GRF (1-29) for 3 months now, and loving the results. Im using this as part of my primming for my next cycle. Will be adding 3iu synthetic GH during PCT and continuing as my bridge, dosing will be 2iu 10 min after am shot and 1iu 10 min after the afternoon shot. All of my research on peptides has lead to my decision that this would be the best protocol. Also will be adding 3 x 100mcg ipamorelin. As it has a very similar make up to GHRP6 without the saturation effect I believe this will give the additional boost im looking for during that bitch of a PCT month. researching slin to throw in there too

[gonzo6183]

Just went back to finish reading and damn... This was a great thread, can anyone remove all the crap and keep it that way?

[OnTheSauce]

you'll go through nearly 100slin pins a month following the 3x a day. End up spending as much on pins as you will on the actual GHRP.

[DanB]

you'll go through nearly 100slin pins a month following the 3x a day. End up spending as much on pins as you will on the actual GHRP.

Lucky that they are free in U.K. and Ireland then

And some people use same pin 3x's a day

[OnTheSauce]

i wont use the same pin 3x a day, ill just spend the money.

[MASTERMIKE 48]

Great read guys! I have been researching these two peptides to run with my next cycle and had been conteplating running synthetic GH but the sources I found were flaky and not sure what I was really getting! I suppose the same could run true with GRF-129 MOD AND GHRP-2 but at least the peptide sources I have used in the past are legit so the risk of getting bunk stuff is less! Im planning on running 100mcg of both 2 times a day once pre meal and the other 15 minutes before I finish my workout then after I see how I feel after a couple will dose 3 times a day for a minimum of 4 months and through my pct to keep my gains! Looking forward to hearing everyones results and I will let you know of mine!