Hello,
Is it better to use GHRP than HGH?
I’ve been reading around on this, and it seems that HGH works better when it is released in “pulses”, and GHRP mediates this “pulse” effect and is therefore better than just shooting actual HGH.
Is this true?
Thanks,
If you are hoping for the same or even similar results from G6 that you could attain from a correctly administered cycle of HGH, then no, not at all. Not even remotely close, in fact.
oh ok. Cheers.
Something i read about the “pulsatile” nature of going down the GHRP + GHRH route that made out it was better than loading the body up with exogenous HGH. Maybe i misinterpreted.
Wait wait wait wait…
I’m not sure about this.
I’ve read:
"In comparison to synthetic GH administration we find that:
22iu of synthetic GH results in 495 - 585 ng/ml
Saturation doses of GHRH & GHRP results in 130 - 170 ng/ml
These results indicate that 22iu is between 3.8 and 3.4 more efficacious then a single administration of GHRH & GHRP which means that a single dose of GHRH & GHRP has the potential to produce better then the equivalent of 5iu of GH in plasma.
A dosing protocol of GHRH + GHRP at saturation dose, administered 3 times per day has the potential to exceed the equivalent of 15iu."
See look, this is clearly saying that using somthing like GHRP6+CJC-1295 three times a day, you can easily get your GH in your blood up to what you would get from dosing 5iu of synthetic hormones A DAY.
Plus using secretagogues is BETTER than using synthetic HGH because you are stimulating natural GH release, there is no shut down of the pituitary and because it releases HGH in a “pulsatile” nature, just liek our natural rhythm, then cells stay sensitive to GH - which is not the case when you dose heavy with 4iu of synthetic HGH all at once.
I dare you to refute anything i’ve said. DARE YOU.
You sound like a jealous boyfriend.
I’ll do you one better. I’m willing to bet real money that my 5iu of GH a day (as an average, not administered ED) is going to produce more real world results than whatever your purported “saturation dose” of GHRP is going to produce.
Before you go getting all excited because you happened to find something that appears to confirm your conclusions, you may want to look into a few more real world experiences with both compounds. I think you’ll find that there’s a reason GHRP-6’s price remains consistently among the lowest of all the peptides, while GH is never anything other than the highest.
(Keep in mind I am oversimplifying and excluding many factors such as production costs, but in the end, I believe you will find my simple, provincial initial answer is still the correct one).
I’m sure you are correct Cortes 
I was just provoking other people to chime in because of what i’m reading on other forums.
It’s not just the GHRP-6 tho, its the synergy with the CJC-1295 which is meant to do the magic.
I had a link in that post which got removed, which explains further. The arguments made there are very compelling, i must say.
Was just wondering if anyone here had anything to add…
x2 Cortes.
GHRP is a useful tool but NOT if the primary goal is a supraphysiological level of GH.
GHRP is useful for:
Gaining weight through the increase in hunger.
Minimising negative feedback during GH use.
Minimising negative feedback during IGF use.
Potentating GHRH effects (a GHRP/H stack is the only viable cheaper alternative to GH, yet it STILL is not going to be as effective as GH itself)
If i have repeated anything i apologise but the OP’s posts are not viewable by me.
There is having knowledge enough to think outside of the box, and there is trying to be too smart for your own good and attempting to reinvent the wheel.
I have looked, but I have not read about any study or personal experience that directly compares a GH cycle vs a GHRP + GHRH cycle.
There seem to be more people getting good effects from GH than GHRP + GHRH, but GH has been around longer and there are many more experienced GH users.
I would not say that GH vs GHRP + GHRH has been decided at all.
We need a BBB’s GHRP + GHRH Protocol thread, and then we might be getting somewhere.
[quote]ins8ibl wrote:
I have looked, but I have not read about any study or personal experience that directly compares a GH cycle vs a GHRP + GHRH cycle.
There seem to be more people getting good effects from GH than GHRP + GHRH, but GH has been around longer and there are many more experienced GH users.
I would not say that GH vs GHRP + GHRH has been decided at all.
We need a BBB’s GHRP + GHRH Protocol thread, and then we might be getting somewhere. [/quote]
Exactly. This is why i started this thread in this more learned forum.
Both GHRP-6 and GHRH (in the form of CJC-1295) are new compounds and there is not enough actual experience.
People are saying you can achieve supraphysiological levels of GH akin to that which you would get with HGH injections… has anyone experienced this? What’s the maximum people how’ve actually used this protocol been able to achieve?
That’s wot i was wondering.
Thanks!
hi Brook!
I read that you had trouble reading my posts so i regiestered a new account pour vous 
This is what i said:
"In comparison to synthetic GH administration we find that:
22iu of synthetic GH results in 495 - 585 ng/ml
Saturation doses of GHRH & GHRP results in 130 - 170 ng/ml
These results indicate that 22iu is between 3.8 and 3.4 more efficacious then a single administration of GHRH & GHRP which means that a single dose of GHRH & GHRP has the potential to produce better then the equivalent of 5iu of GH in plasma.
A dosing protocol of GHRH + GHRP at saturation dose, administered 3 times per day has the potential to exceed the equivalent of 15iu."
See look, this is clearly saying that using somthing like GHRP6+CJC-1295 three times a day, you can easily get your GH in your blood up to what you would get from dosing 5iu of synthetic hormones A DAY.
and then i said
I’m sure you are correct Cortes 
I was just provoking other people to chime in because of what i’m reading on other forums.
It’s not just the GHRP-6 tho, its the synergy with the CJC-1295 which is meant to do the magic.
I had a link in that post which got removed, which explains further. The arguments made there are very compelling, i must say.
Was just wondering if anyone here had anything to add…
and finally i said
Both GHRP-6 and GHRH (in the form of CJC-1295) are new compounds and there is not enough actual experience.
People are saying you can achieve supraphysiological levels of GH akin to that which you would get with HGH injections… has anyone experienced this? What’s the maximum people how’ve actually used this protocol been able to achieve?
That’s wot i was wondering.
Thanks!
[quote]ins8ibl wrote:
I have looked, but I have not read about any study or personal experience that directly compares a GH cycle vs a GHRP + GHRH cycle.
There seem to be more people getting good effects from GH than GHRP + GHRH, but GH has been around longer and there are many more experienced GH users.
I would not say that GH vs GHRP + GHRH has been decided at all.
We need a BBB’s GHRP + GHRH Protocol thread, and then we might be getting somewhere. [/quote]
Sorry - you seem to be under the impression that i think that GHRP and GHRH are as good as GH? I could have sworn that the point i was making that if any comparison was to be made it would be using the two stacked secretagogues and not just one - especially the ‘weaker’ of the two.
Maybe i mis-worded…
But considering as you haven’t read anything on a particular subject - well, clearly there is nothing to it at all.
[quote]wyldflower2 wrote:
…[/quote]
Are you for real? Jesus Christ.
[quote] Brook wrote:
wyldflower2 wrote:
…
Are you for real? Jesus Christ.[/quote]
YES! I AM IN FACT THAT INSANE!
[quote]wyldflower2 wrote:
Brook wrote:
wyldflower2 wrote:
…
Are you for real? Jesus Christ.
YES! I AM IN FACT THAT INSANE![/quote]
If someone puts you on their ignore list, it is likely done for a reason. You clearly have the mentality of a child. Making a second account to stalk someone is rediculous.
I thought this was a good productive thread to stimulate debate
I like Wyldflower 1 and Wyldflower 2.
I think he is very original.
He may well be 12 but original still.
He may well be misunderstood.
Wyldflower, both of you 1 and 2, are you of Latin origin?
What is your cultural make up?
If the guys understand where you are coming from they may be more accepting and tolerant of your antics.
; )
Aww, thanks for the support Alpha F, i know i can be “quirky” at times. Deep down i have the heart of a piglet (even though i also have the strength of an ox)
(PS - I’m from Pakistani origin, born and raised in the north of England, ee ba gum).
Anyway, this is something else that i’ve dug out:
GH vs CJC-1295
I think i should look into some pub med experimental articles to further expoound upon this theory (which certainly is not mine).
CJC is not GHRP.
Yeah, i see where my confusion arose. I know CJC is a GHRH, but in my questioning i only referred to GHRP
I think we can all agree taht GHRH + GHRP is as effective, if not moreso, than straight up HGH.
But then GHRH is expensive which is maybe why people either do GHRP or HGH? I dunno, just throwin it out there.
Is that so? I never knew that - it would be prudent for you to post the results of the poll that has been carried out that suggests this fact…
And this is not agreed upon by a single poster on this thread so far… It certainly wasn’t what i said in my post, and i know that Cortes and Ins8tibl do not believe this to be true either.
I almost forgot why i blocked you in the first place - and no, it was never because you were ‘quirky’, it is because you talk out of your arse.
For those who actually have a source and don’t just buy online from the first place that advertises, a run of GHRH is significantly lower in cost than a run of the same length of GH - even if the GH is $1/iu.
As per your original post, the answer is no. Simple as that. nope.
At the risk of being branded a bully simply because i disagree with everything you say, i will add you back onto the list of people i dont have to read.
Hope i helped clear up any confusion.