BBB, another question:
The mesomorphic changes sought out by this protocol, are the more skeletal or muscular?
BBB, another question:
The mesomorphic changes sought out by this protocol, are the more skeletal or muscular?
OK, gotcha on that. Yeah, I can see what you mean about the smile and how it might worry you. I think you’re safe…LOL
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
ins8ibl wrote:
BBB, I think you said AAS should be run for the duration of HGH use. Isn’t 21 weeks a long cycle of AAS?
What would you suggest as a complimentary AAS cycle for this HGH experiment? Would it be better to run two short cycles with a break in the middle?
That is an excellent question. I think there are a couple of angles of approach (actually three) that could be considered as viable options.
As you point out, two shorter cycles with a break, or a ‘blast and cruise’ approach should be viable and is probably a sensible method to persue.
However, a 21 week cycle should be OK to recover from, BUT ONLY with a stasis taper protocol. You can forget about a SERM PCT IMO in a cycle of this length.
Having said all this, I’m hoping that this ‘new’ GH protocol will effect the desired changes in a much shorter timeframe (especially if MGF is added), meaning less time on AAS and an easier recovery.
Part of me thinks that 1000-2000mg per week of test (plus AI obviously) is ‘all’ that is needed in terms of AAS.
Some folks may throw their hands up in horror at that figure, but remember kids, we’re not playing in the sandbox here. we are specifically trying to dramatically alter the basic phenotype of the body towards a much more mesomorphic condition. We will be using large (but not ‘extreme’ by any means when compared to natural levels during puberty) amounts of GH, and I think that large amounts of AAS will be highly synergistic.
BBB[/quote]
BBB thanks for some exceptional info!
My question based on this setup is…
-
Would it better to stick to 90 days of hgh and test then take some time off from the pharm? Or can we do it for say 180 days then take 90 off then repeat?
-
Would that 1-2k of test be just “test” or combo of “test and tren” or “Test and tren and mast” to reach that 1-2k number?
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Dave_ wrote:
Woah! BBB is on the warpath! Impressive points all round though.
Everything you’ve said is flawless, harsh or otherwise (not that you need me to tell you that!). Unfortunately the ability to talk straight with people I care about is not something that comes easily to me, much to the detriment of those very people I profess to be looking out for.
Kudos to you, BBB.
EDIT: I have a question to ask, if I may -
I understand that this GH protocol should be used during the cycle proper (as opposed to cruising or stasis periods). So, if one is interested in using peptides to ease/aid recovery during PCT would you back GH or IGF (or other)? My answer would be IGF or perhaps even GHRP-6, but I’m interested to hear your opinion on this.
Cheers mate 
Did I come accross as harsh? I suppose compared to my normally mild mannered sentences, I did.express a degree of impatience.
I had my reasons, trust me. So sorry everyone (especially ITZ).
Well I guess that if you ran the GH for 6 months but the AAS for ‘only’ 5 then you are covered by peptides for PCT. Personally, IGF1 has never done much for me except give me the bloating and gut growth of GH without the beneficial effects.
GHRP6 should be a useful addition though.
I might also consider a blast of MGF midway therough the GH, to force creation of more sattelite cells, to replace those that have been incorporated into the myofibril.
BBB[/quote]
How would you incorporate the MGF?
[quote]caladin wrote:
- Would that 1-2k of test be just “test” or combo of “test and tren” or “Test and tren and mast” to reach that 1-2k number?
[/quote]
I was wondering this myself.
Ok I am in also but no IV for me. Yet anyways. I can only do 4 inj a day because of work so will still do the recomended dose but split between 4 shots instead of 5 or 6. I’ll start it up today.
I am curious BBB, what is your goal in following the protocol a second time seeing that you have already reaped the intended body comp benefits (larger wrists, shift to endomorph body type, etc.)?
Are there cumulative benefits in subsequent runs?
Any news guys? I hope you will keep us in the loop…
Sorry to derail this a bit. I assume there’s a momentary pause in posting while people are waiting for results. Anyways I wanted to bring a few HGH/peptide-related subjects up.
Are you all aware that a few companies are in the process of developing long-acting growth hormone analogs? The few analogs use PEGylation to achieve this (Genentech and Ambrx each have one, possibly Novo Nordisk too). Does anyone think they might not have any pharmacologic use for bodybuilding because they provide too much of a constant dose? This is the concept here in the thread right, that you would have better growth from a dosing regimen that mimics endogenous release? I’ve heard from people up the totem pole that the long-acting HGH is relatively useless for bodybuilding. Although it wasn’t much more than a quick comment I heard, it was from a very respected and informed individual.
But this all makes me anxious to see if the long-acting HGHs will prove themselves as useful for bodybuilders. Moreso from a scientific stand point than anything though.
I do see a potential problem in that the long-acting analogs are a bit harder to manufacture, and unlike the native hormone, are actually patentable, so people can’t just start selling them without having whatever company come in and demand their profit. Hence availability might be pretty damn limited. At least for a while.
I also was wondering if anyone here had experience with GHRH? I’ve read elsewhere (on forums with less reliable opinions though) that GHRH was a much better option than HGH itself because of its ability to “more intelligently” cause your body to upregulate its HGH production in pulsating manners.
There’s also some longer-acting GHRH analogs coming out too, or at least hitting clinical trials. I think there’s a Conjuchem analog being sold on the net, as it may have been denied clinical approval due to questions about the toxicity of the linker it uses to attach itself to albumin. I haven’t seen much lately on it though. But I am perhaps more interested in GHRH and especially MGF as well.
My own interests come from personal knowledge in new & novel ways to modify these puppies to make them much more effective, that is, if there is truly something they can benefit people with in the first place.
There’s a lot of excellent work we are doing in finding ways to make peptides have increased bioavailability and efficacy/potency, and it is going to be applicable to these two among other hormones. At this point though I haven’t been able to gather enough worthwhile opinion on whether the native hormones themselves are actually something that people could make use of long-acting derivatives of. The publication track for MGF is very thin, although the few papers out make it look pretty damn effective at repairing muscle tissue and patents are starting to appear, so obviously something is getting the attention of the scientists.
Please recognize I’m not try to sound cocky or anything, and am serious the capabilities (it is for the most part unpublished information), but am looking for insight if it is available here as the more things set in my head to begin independent work on, the quicker you all might be able to have fun with what is made. =P
long acting HGH wouldn’t be optimal…it would be the opposite of what we are trying to acheive with the IV/IM administration.
There would be more negative feedback on natural HGH and possibly more negative sides as well due to the constant presence of the HGH…insulin sensitivity and adema would both probably be issues at higher doses.
Not sure about a long acting GHRH or MGF…
I guess I should have said his earlier. I think the PEGylated HGH would act more like the IV injection is intended to here, where you want less in the lymph and more in the bloodstream. PEG’s ability to change physical properties of the protein results in greater bioavailability. Hence it might work differently.
bioavailability isn’t an issue, shooting IM/IV is avoiding the lymph system and going straight to the bloodstream…you want a short burst to the system and then you want it to be gone. we’re already effectively acheiving that.
I don’t see any reason to use something like that unless there is going to be better results or better cost…I can’t imagine results would be better because you have a long acting compound which is going to (potentially) cause issues with somatostatin release and downregulation of insulin receptors (the same as it would if you had it in the lymph system) and cost of a patented compound will always be higher so that’s out as well…unless it’s much cheaper to produce which is unlikely or the results are crap in which case I’m still not interested.
I see zero reason to be interested in this unless you can give me a good one?
Thanks BBB…