I’m wondering how much % increase one would need to notice increased muscle growth and recovery when it comes to GH. You hear a lot about how GABA will increase GH 200% to 400%, but is that significant enough to see results? I thought you guys might be able to help me out.
It would depend absolutely on the amount there is secreted to begin with - which is age related. A 200% increase for a 7 year old is significantly higher than a 200% increase in a 70 year old… and quite often in the trials where these percentages are created, the group are in a diminished hormonal state (for whatever reason).
So likely 200% increase in old women… I am sure if one searched endojournals.org…
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Given that a “normal adult” (what ever that means) secretes about 1.5 iu of HGH per day, give or take. Will GABA make you produce 3-6 iu of GH per day? I doubt it.
If you compare HGH to AAS, the effects are quite different. A strong oral AAS will rapidly increase glycogen uptake, intramuscular fuild retention, protein synthesis and IGF-1 secretion. This would result in immediate transient sacroplasmic hypertrophy, improved recover and strength. Traditional protocol with HGH won’t produce any dramatic results in the first month. In comparison, GABA alone won’t give you that much boost.
how much total HGH per week (via IV/IM) would be comparable to 50mg ED test suspension or equivalent
I’m not sure you can really compare the two (GH to test sus or anything). GH is…well, different. I’ve never used it, but in general you really just can’t compare them.
a “normal adult” (what ever that means)[/quote]
It means average.
It could also mean more specifically the mean value of a sample of the general population and not necessarily a specific sample of the population such as trained athletes.
I don’t know if they use a median value, or average value, or a combined weighted value. I have noticed that due to funding constraints, a lot of studies had a small sample base. So the standard deviation is quite large, which means the end result can be statically inconclusive.
I don’t know if they use a median value, or average value, or a combined weighted value. I have noticed that due to funding constraints, a lot of studies had a small sample base. So the standard deviation is quite large, which means the end result can be statically inconclusive. [/quote]
Forgive me. I was unsure whether you were quoting from a scientific journal and didn’t know statistical terminology.
the end result for marketing a product is always the same (that being the statistical sample used is the one that is most favorable to their desired outcome). GH boosters are really hilarious when you think about it, i mean even real GH (as alot of people on here know) is not the holy grail that people want to make it out to be. So will you see some miraculous result with a GH booster, NO. As far as comparing it to test suspension…apples to oranges. Thats about like saying how much vitamin c will be equivalent to 100mcg of vitamin b12 … it makes no sense.