If it weren't for the anecdotes and lore, I could never imagine myself spending hundreds on a substance with such equivocal-at-best evidence for efficacy.
This study is the one that bothers me most: Claims for the anabolic effects of growth hormone: a case of the Emperor’s new clothes?
I've never seen a good response to it on any forum.
I've crossed referenced many of the citations myself, and yes I do see that many of the studies referenced are less than perfect. They are often short, and they often use low doses.
However, the authors make some good points about the complaints of the AAS community. We say "you have to use it for longer", "you have to use more", "you have to use it with T", etc, seemingly in an effort to set up a situation that could never be ethically tested by researchers.
Does anyone know of any research on HGH wherein it at least 15IU per week (assuming maybe 0.2IU/kg/week for average weight guys) for at least 24 weeks was compared to placebo?
I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I'll still buy another 300IU. I'm just trying to be unbiased about this.
Reply With Quote