T Nation

GH and Diabetes?


#1

This is confusing stuff...another forum is advocating ED GH SubQ as optimal....posting up medical information supporting it for various reasons. They also say if you eat anything, even just protein, within an hour of your SubQ GH injection, you increase your chances of diabetes tremendously.

I have not seen any recent GH threads on here, so am not sure if folks are doing the EOD or E3D IM or IV in the T Nation world....or if some of you do SubQ ED or 5 on 2 off...

Any input appreciated. I need to read back through the BBB threads from years ago and see if I can figure it out or if anyone has done a recent update on those protocols.


#2

bluecollar.The sub-q is a scam.The g.h. is injected or it's ineffective.The stomach acid hydrocloric-acid will render any oral,or sub-q useless.In regard's to diabetes as a result of a drink within a hour of use?? That's nonsense.The pituitary produces g.h and people eat and drink.Bro there was this guy named Kevin Treudau and he was indicted for fraud as a result of selling g.h. sub-q. thankyou john


#3

No idea what their real names are, its all screen names like on here. Im going to try to paste on of their posts. I tell people I am doing it IM but no one else seems to on the other forum I check.

"I researched rhGH quite thoroughly and just started to take it a week ago, at 2IU daily until I ramp up to 3IU for as long as I can (planned 30 weeks to assess whether the investment was worth it or not). I was quite appalled at the amount of misinformation I was reading while researching hGH and its synthetic counterpart rhGH. I have a BA in molecular biology and am about to start my MA in a related field, so I still have access to all scientific libraries through my university's libraries. After reading a lot of erroneous and crappy threads everyone on the internet, some of which went from mildly inaccurate to hot steaming manure, I decided not to trust what I read online and opted to seek answers through peer-reviewed scientific literature.

I'll gladly share what I found out and read, but you should not take my word for it. I've included a link at the bottom of this thread to six articles published between 2008 and today (so they are recent), zipped in a file. All are in PDF formats and were acquired through PubMed. Read them diligently.

First, you should know that there have been very few studies on the exogenous supplementation of rhGH in healthy human beings. hGH supplementation for GH deficient patients (will be referred as GHD patients for the rest of this post) began already in the sixties, and since then, its efficacy has been well documented in the scientific literature. At the time, the hGH would be extracted from the pituitary gland of cadavers. This presented obvious risks, and after a few professional Russian bodybuilders died from Kreutzfeld-Jakob disease (mad cow disease) in the nineties because their hGH came from infected cadavers, the popularity of the drug took a slight drop in the bodybuilding world (this is briefly discussed in Dr. Ronald Klatz's book "Grow Young with HGH", a MD who has been quite active in advocating for hGH in general). When the synthetic process for creating it was discovered (referred to a recombinant human growth hormone, or rhGH), such angst was no longer necessary.

Back to our studies.

As I said, there have been very few controlled studies on non-GHD, healthy human beings. The reason is evident: all peer-reviewed studies must first be accepted by an ethics committee, and considering the illegal nature of the use of hGH in most countries for sports/Performance enhancement uses, very few universities would take the risk of exposing their research department to legal liability.

On that front, a very interesting and tightly controlled study published in March 2008, titled "Physical Effects of Short-Term Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Administration in Abstinent Steroid Dependency" (Michael R. Graham & cie) showed very impressive results even on a six-days clinical trial. This article is included in the zip linked at the bottom. The GH group were administered a daily dose of 0.058 IU*kg*day, so someone weighting 100kg/220lbs would have been getting a 5.8IU/dose, which is consistent with the underground literature, and could even be considered a moderately high dose. The test subjects had been off AAS and any other drugs for twelve weeks and the rhGH was administered alone. The subjects lost 1% of BF in six days, from 21.2% to 19.2%, and that loss was maintained up to months after the GH injections stopped. It's one of the first, if not the first study, to scientifically establish the benefits of rhGH on healthy human beings. There were some minimal gains in lean mass and strength as well. The authors did hypothesized in their conclusion that the twelve weeks of wash-off period might not have been enough and that the subjects might still have been in a latent catabolic phase, which may have been ameliorated by the anabolic effect of rhGH administration.

Even though its use has been documented in the underground literature since 1983, exogenous hGH supplementation was never scientifically proven as being effective or helpful until a few years ago.

Now, the main reason that prompted me to research hGH more thoroughly is because I had found a lot of contradicting information on dosage, but especially time and site of injections. The aforementioned 2008 study used sub-cutaneous injections, and considering the short half-life of hGH (two hours at best), it would make sense to do sub-cutaneous injections over intra-muscular since the latter would likely slow down absorption and by extension, efficacy. As for the time of injection, well... there seemed to be a split between the "right before bed" crowd or "just before or after workout" crowd.

To better understand this debate, you should know the recent studies (and likely before as well) have demonstrated that hGH is released by the pituitary gland in a pulsatile fashion, as opposed to slowly and continuously as the thyroid does with T4. Most of your natural production (which measures at 1-1.5IU/day on average) occurs during deep-stage REM sleep (approx. 2-3 hours after you've fallen asleep) and some of it after intense exercise. Although both hGH and rhGH are 22kD isomers, the natural kind contains 191 amino acids (191aa) while the synthetic version comes in both 191aa and 192aa. Some people hypothesized that taking rhGH before bed would NOT interfere with natural hGH production, and since hGH is best used by the body while you sleep (this is a logical statement as it follow your pituitary's natural behavior), taking your rHGH injection before sleep (say 30 to 60 minutes before hitting the sack) would be most appropriate.

HOWEVER, I have found no evidence to support this claim in the scientific literature. Therefore, I ask, why take the risk of shutting down your natural production? rhGH must be used over the long term to show results, at the very least six months, but some people have been taking it for years. So why take it before bed and risk shutting down your pituitary? Until someone shows me a controlled study that proves me wrong, I believe taking your rhGH before bed is a terrible idea. If you ever did shut down your pituitary, there is a good chance GHRP-6 supplementation could kickstart it back into gear, but again... why take the risk?

The 2008 study said they injected it in the morning at the exact same time. It didn't mention if it was pre- or after- workout. My interpretation is that shortly before or after a workout is best, probably after. Since hGH inhibits protein oxydation, augments protein synthesis and augments lipolysis, it would be logical to think rhGH is more beneficial after a workout, say an hour after (this does not apply to IGF-1 LR3 supplementation by the way), when your muscles are starved for glycogen and intense repairs are underway.

What I have been doing is ramping up from 1.5IU to 3IU (I'm at 2IU now) but when I reach 3IU, I will split it in two doses. Considering the short half-life of hGH (and unlike IGF-1, the cellular response is shorter than 72 hours, which is why people say the half-life of IGF-1 LR3 is not important to consider, but it is with rhGH), releasing two "pulses" of 1.5IU apart will yield better results than one dose of 3IU. This is established in the literature as well. In one of the attached study, researchers found that administering two small doses per day over one big one, even if the single dose was five timers higher in concentration, yielded better results. It should also be said that rhGH is more efficient if taken every day. I've seen protocols that suggest 5 days on, 2 days off, but this is complete and utter manure. The only reason to do so is to save money. Unlike ECA, IGF-1 LR3 or other drugs, hGH receptors do not need any downtime. If you can afford it, stick to an ED regimen.

As for sides, Joint Pain or swollen hands at the most common at low doses (<5IU/day). Ramping up from 1.5IU (for a week), then go up in 0.5 increments slowly, should avoid any sides whatsoever. At higher dosage, the articles mentioned a tender bowel, an extended gut and acromegaly at dosages of 10IU/day and beyond. Acromegaly is a condition in which organs and bones become enlarged beyond normal. This is easily explained. GH (the key letter is G, which stands for growth), if taken in high enough dosage, will signal every other organs, even your bones and especially your intestines, to grow. GH is converted to IGF-1 (the bioactive byproduct) in the liver, and intestines have the highest amount of IGF-1 receptors in the body. If you go too high, the intestines will grow, making your gut look bigger.

Consider your natural production hovers at 1-1.5IU per day. Consider the controlled study mentioned above used a 0.058IU*kg per day dose. I frown at those who propose 10IU and more. 7 times the natural production seems awfully high, especially when plenty of people have reported very positive results at doses as low as 2IU/day (which is still double what your body usually produces!) Remember that your body and its metabolism always prefer the status quo, a healthy and balanced equilibrium. This is called homeostasis in the scientific literature. The further you stray away from this balance, the more your body will react and act up. Considering rhGH's price, its established side effects at high dosage and its overall use, I would suggest anywhere from 2IU-5IU per day for at least six months is the best way to approach GH. I've seen bodybuilders on other forums state their opinion that even 5IU is too low to get significant gains in mass, and that unless you hit 10IU ED, you won't get the best results. I think this is looking at it from the worst possible angle.

GH's biggest advantages are enhanced fat loss, gains in lean mass, overall enhanced health and regenerative capabilities. If you want to gain mass, anabolic steroids or testosterone are a much better and cheaper alternative for these goals, and GH is often used in conjunction with these. I have no experience on that front and have no interest in it either as I use rhGH for its metabolic effects, so others will have to chip in if you're interested in finding out more.

What I am considering right now, and am actively researching, is stacking the rhGH with IGF-1 LR3 at a dosage of 40 mcg/day EOD for 4-6 weeks- (with the same cool off period before taking it again) to supplement my continuous GH use. There is supposedly great documented synergy between rhGH and IGF1LR3 use, but I want to get more facts before I start pinning more drugs into my body.

I think this pretty much covers everything I found out and know. I hope you found it helpful. I've typed all of this up myself, so if some $%%^&& intends to copy/paste it on another site, please give credit where credit is due. Cheers "


#4

I guess this post doesnt cover it, but they have other threads saying GH can or has led to diabetes in younger athletes who use it long term and eat around their injections...and that SubQ is the way to go, every day or 5 on 2 off.