Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Gh, insulin, igf-l? How much mass will these add to your physique?
- Thread starter biteme
- Start date
majutsu
Well-known member
that's the 20million dollar question. In the science literature GH, IGF or insulin alone do nothing for skeletal muscle mass different than placebo. Bodybuilders respond by saying that these compounds don't work alone, but that GH only works with AAS and the same for IGF. One study of GH+AAS was negative in healthy athletes for any benefit over AAS alone (Yereshevsky's famous paper). IGF+AAS hasn't been studied. It would seem so far that GH alone, IGF alone, insulin alone, and GH+AAS (all 4) do not add mass, just cut some fat.
Bodybuilders now say that the original studies were too short (2months) and you need 4 months to see an effect. Also, they say you need inuslin to make GH+AAS work to build mass. So for every negative study bodybuilders have an excuse. They also say the doses are too low (usu 2-4U GH and 500 test in these studies) and that good results need double those doses.
Now, it would seem to me that if 4 months produced an effect, 2 months should see some measurable effect if there is a steady increase in the growth rate. Also, half doses should also show maybe roughly half an effect. This is usually how drugs work. Also, test, deca, primo, tren, dbol, winny, anavar, and anadrol all have clearly measurable anabolic effects even at 2 weeks. The basics are clearly anabolic, without any doubt. So as I see it, GH and insulin have no clear anabolic effect and bodybuilders refuse to admit we were had by hype.
The theory on GH is real good. So why doesn't it work? The most likely reason would be that IGF increase with GH is not reliable, pulsed right, etc. So IGF seems like it should be more successful. But there are no human trials of IGF at this time.
Bodybuilders will tell you GH helped them. But most guys are taking several injectables and some orals, and its impossible to isolate the GH as a factor. Furthermore, even on GH alone cycles, most bodybuilders do not take accurate pre- and post- cycle bodyweights, with hydrostatic BF (weighed in a water tank) before and after. Also, gut and connective tissue growth are seen with GH, and it's still fat free mass, but that doesn't mean it's skeletal muscle. You need MRI or CT for that. I have never met an amateur bodybuilder who did GH only, pre and post cycle weights and hydrostatic BFs, and pre and post cycle quantitative MRI. Also, GH has a euphoria with it, why it's used in resistant adult depressions or GHD depression. So people burn fat, have better skin, feel happy, and that prevents them from being very logical or scientific about GH at that point.
I have tried to get real world data from bodybuilders on AAS, GH, insulin, and IGF for a year. But all you get is vague, "I liked it" bullshit. No numbers.
That is my summary of what I know about the science, research, and real-world aspects of GH, IGF, and insulin.
Great thread. I hope it doesn't die in 2 posts, and I hope someone says something meaningful about GH and AAS in particular.
Bodybuilders now say that the original studies were too short (2months) and you need 4 months to see an effect. Also, they say you need inuslin to make GH+AAS work to build mass. So for every negative study bodybuilders have an excuse. They also say the doses are too low (usu 2-4U GH and 500 test in these studies) and that good results need double those doses.
Now, it would seem to me that if 4 months produced an effect, 2 months should see some measurable effect if there is a steady increase in the growth rate. Also, half doses should also show maybe roughly half an effect. This is usually how drugs work. Also, test, deca, primo, tren, dbol, winny, anavar, and anadrol all have clearly measurable anabolic effects even at 2 weeks. The basics are clearly anabolic, without any doubt. So as I see it, GH and insulin have no clear anabolic effect and bodybuilders refuse to admit we were had by hype.
The theory on GH is real good. So why doesn't it work? The most likely reason would be that IGF increase with GH is not reliable, pulsed right, etc. So IGF seems like it should be more successful. But there are no human trials of IGF at this time.
Bodybuilders will tell you GH helped them. But most guys are taking several injectables and some orals, and its impossible to isolate the GH as a factor. Furthermore, even on GH alone cycles, most bodybuilders do not take accurate pre- and post- cycle bodyweights, with hydrostatic BF (weighed in a water tank) before and after. Also, gut and connective tissue growth are seen with GH, and it's still fat free mass, but that doesn't mean it's skeletal muscle. You need MRI or CT for that. I have never met an amateur bodybuilder who did GH only, pre and post cycle weights and hydrostatic BFs, and pre and post cycle quantitative MRI. Also, GH has a euphoria with it, why it's used in resistant adult depressions or GHD depression. So people burn fat, have better skin, feel happy, and that prevents them from being very logical or scientific about GH at that point.
I have tried to get real world data from bodybuilders on AAS, GH, insulin, and IGF for a year. But all you get is vague, "I liked it" bullshit. No numbers.
That is my summary of what I know about the science, research, and real-world aspects of GH, IGF, and insulin.
Great thread. I hope it doesn't die in 2 posts, and I hope someone says something meaningful about GH and AAS in particular.
majutsu
Well-known member
I would strongly suspect insulin, in delivering nutrients to your muscles, should certainly improve your growth. But insulin+AAS hasn't been studied officially either. I hear very little from bodybuilders in life or on the boards about their experiences with AAS+insulin alone. But if you got them, post up!
U
UA_Iron
Guest
Majutsu shining some real scientific light on the matter, and props to you. People have been reporting decent results with IGF1 and then some have said it didnt do much for them. I am considering trying it if I can justify spending the money on it.
majutsu
Well-known member
You know, UA that my next cycle includes GH+slin, at least at this stage of planning. So, before GH-lovers flame me, they should know I want to believe in GH too. I wanted to once and for all prove to myself whether GH+slin would unlock the anabolic potential of GH. GH+AAS without slin did not do anything more than AAS at the same dose did, 3IUedx4months. This was my subjective opinion as I did not have anyone else to be a control group. So I was comparing AAS+GH to my memory of the same cycle of AAS done without GH in the past. I know that's a pretty vague experiment, but I felt there was no muscle growth difference with GH. I did however notice the few thousand dollars difference in my bank account for no apparent benefit.
So I was really going to try GH+slin, and if that doesn't work I was going to try IGF-R3. If that doesn't work . . . I know test+deca+dbol works!
Depending on what others say about GH+slin, I might just go straight to IGF-R3 now.
So I was really going to try GH+slin, and if that doesn't work I was going to try IGF-R3. If that doesn't work . . . I know test+deca+dbol works!
Depending on what others say about GH+slin, I might just go straight to IGF-R3 now.
Last edited:
cryptkeeper
New member
from a 12 wek cycle of only:
sust 250mg per wk
GH 3IU 6x per wk
winny 25mg ED for last 5wks
i gained a total of 23lbs. of bodyweight, which is the most i ever gained on any cycle. the edema i was experiencing from these low doses was so severe, it would hurt my shins alot to just stand in a club with my drink, i would always have to sit down. my face also looked deformed for my first 3 or so waking hours. most of my gains were water. i did lose a significant amount of fat though. GH and AAS did not wow me as i thought it would. if i was to try anything again, it would be AAS with t3.
sust 250mg per wk
GH 3IU 6x per wk
winny 25mg ED for last 5wks
i gained a total of 23lbs. of bodyweight, which is the most i ever gained on any cycle. the edema i was experiencing from these low doses was so severe, it would hurt my shins alot to just stand in a club with my drink, i would always have to sit down. my face also looked deformed for my first 3 or so waking hours. most of my gains were water. i did lose a significant amount of fat though. GH and AAS did not wow me as i thought it would. if i was to try anything again, it would be AAS with t3.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
majutsu said:
I think the evolution idea is hasty, evolution is a long drawn out process. I agree with the other aspects though- the AAS doses and training methods have evolved and have been refined to where they are the most effective.
Another approach we can look at is a statistical approach. The amount of competitive bodybuilders is much higher nowadays than 30 years ago. With a greater number of competitors there will be more standouts like Ronny, Markus, etc. The availability of drugs is probably higher today than 30 years ago as well- even if they are illegal now.
