Gr33dyOctopus
GLP-1 Enthusiast
At low doses its a healing peptide.
Best price on hgh right now?
- Thread starter Gr33dyOctopus
- Start date
IronCircuit
GLP-1 Apprentice
I mean, that's an overexaggerated example of drug abuse. HGH used at correct dosing does wonders for a physique.
CNCCurrency
GLP-1 Specialist
Not even close to that issue at low dose
GLiPtest
GLP-1 Novice
🚫No Source Discussion🚫
All these people discussing doses as some random IU, rather than by IGF-1 target, along with the life altering changes of supraphysiologic levels that happen so slowly and insidiously they’re rarely detected for many years, is why the existing laws against rHGH will be strictly enforced again within a few years.
Check your IGF-1, keep your Z Score below 3 if you’re going longer than a few months, or don’t do rHGH.
ContainHer
GLP-1 Enthusiast
Listen, y'all can pin whatever you'd like, no judgement here - it's just not for me. There is no mechanism in microdosing HGH that says grow this but not that.
I understand it's documented that low therapeutic dose / microdosing doesn't generally cause significant growth to your internal organs as horomone levels are closer to your natural production. The words generally, typically, or significantly, is just not enough of a reassurance for me - child birth did enough damage to my internals. I'd rather low dose HRT.
I understand it's documented that low therapeutic dose / microdosing doesn't generally cause significant growth to your internal organs as horomone levels are closer to your natural production. The words generally, typically, or significantly, is just not enough of a reassurance for me - child birth did enough damage to my internals. I'd rather low dose HRT.
birdwhacker
GLP-1 Enthusiast
That's caused by using high dose HGH alongside insulin to counteract the side effects.
Pretty sure the first rule of injecting research chemicals is to have fun. You should never check your IGF-1 and you should never buy a blood glucose monitor if you use HGH.
Begs the question: Why do you feel the need to chime in on a thread about the best prices on HGH GBs? Know any good ones to share?
ContainHer
GLP-1 Enthusiast
It's really simple... because I can.
birdwhacker
GLP-1 Enthusiast
These late nights do get boring, and there are only so many peptide posts on Reddit you can scroll through before you become ill...
ContainHer
GLP-1 Enthusiast
awe, you're sweet - I'm married though.
It's not late on my side of the country, but I understand, time zones can be difficult. Are the anabolics making you this agro or is this just your general sunny disposition?
birdwhacker
GLP-1 Enthusiast
Gt3294a
GLP-1 Enthusiast
I’m enjoying this thread. But to be fair, the general notion that HGH is always bad is incorrect IMO. HGH deficiency is associated with bone density issues. And the studies that say low levels of IGF always increase life span are based on dwarf mice. I don’t want to be a dwarf mouse. So perhaps some try to find a balance to IGF levels similar to T levels.
ContainHer
GLP-1 Enthusiast
That's a really interesting point - has there been much research on efficacy of GH stimulating peptides vs. actual HGH? A topic I haven't looked much into, but want to learn more on, mostly because I'm obsessed with learning all things even if it's not something I'm relatively interested in using. Bone density opens consideration to women and osteoporosis.
Gt3294a
GLP-1 Enthusiast
I don’t think research on that point is well developed. Bone density has been on my mind for a few years because my mom (mid 70s) has shrunk 2 inches and the typical medications, IMO, aren’t all that well developed. The best options are stuff you can only take for a limited amount of time. Still trying to figure out with my mom. My theory is that in a few decades, there might be recommended IGF levels for people over 50. But who knows.
ContainHer
GLP-1 Enthusiast
Has she tried teriparatide? I know its for two years but it might help mom at this point.
RetCurious
GLP-1 Enthusiast
In case it wasn't posted... not the freeze test but relevant?
Attachments
Gt3294a
GLP-1 Enthusiast
Yeah, that looks likely. Getting mom to take shots is another chore.
You not gonna grow that crazy muscular bubble gut if you run low HGH, especially without any androgens and use of Insulin
MTSpace
GLP-1 Enthusiast
Most believe the bubble gut is from high dosage and exogenous insulin with little regards of insulin sensitivity along with poor digestion and bloating.
YouTube has several experienced users discussing their theories due to insulin sensitivity being understood now verses previous decades with very little consideration back in 90’s and early 2000’s. You don’t see HGH gut as often today as we did back in 90’s and early 2000’s.
But it all appears to be antidotal and theory based discussions.
YouTube has several experienced users discussing their theories due to insulin sensitivity being understood now verses previous decades with very little consideration back in 90’s and early 2000’s. You don’t see HGH gut as often today as we did back in 90’s and early 2000’s.
But it all appears to be antidotal and theory based discussions.
CNCCurrency
GLP-1 Specialist
I saw this in the past, it still puzzles me on the hgh 18 to 36iu degradation difference being vastly different?
RetCurious
GLP-1 Enthusiast
I don't know, all these "harm reduction" testing sites keep this information locked up where no one can get to it unless they are a part of the club.
It's pretty logical that higher concentrations degrade faster. Also gh is one of the most difficult peptides to finish properly and different suppliers perform very differently.
CNCCurrency
GLP-1 Specialist
So explain this to an illogical person why a larger iu degrades quicker? Also peptides are not over something like 50 amino acids unless that changed? My understanding is peptides are just signaling molecules?
"polypeptide" if you want to get semantic about it. I'm not sure what your second point is?
Larger IU means higher concentration. Higher concentration causes physical degradation of more complicated "polypeptides". This is where the advice of not shaking a vial comes from (although it's not applicable to the peptides we typically use because they are too simple to be affected by it.) The majority of the difference of those two tests is more likely differences in raw/finisher quality. But in general higher concentration is going to test worse than lower. Especially in hgh.
GLiPtest
GLP-1 Novice
🚫No Source Discussion🚫
Because “degradation” of rHGH primarily takes the form of aggregation. I’m sure you’ve heard of “dimer”, and the less the better. That’s the smallest aggregate, two rHGH “monomers” stuck together. Trimer is three. Oligomer is up to twenty. The smallest “floater”, the visible speck that forms after reconstitution is at least 100um in size and made up of millions of rHGH molecules stuck together.
The higher the concentration the greater the chance of monomers bumping into each other and adhering. This process requires “seeds” of damaged rHGH monomers exposing “sticky” parts of the amino chain that are normally hidden within folds. When rHGH is damaged, usually by high temps in transport, or exposure to oxygen, they “unfold” and start the chain reaction of aggregation. The greater the concentration, the worse the aggregation is, the more monomers are lost to these balls of rHGH.
Pharma goes to great lengths to avoid this, with 8+ ingredient complex excipient formulas, extreme quality control, and 100% temp controlled shipping and storage.
Not only are the aggregates inactive, so you lose x percent of active product, they’re immunogenic, and can cause your immune system to develop antibodies against rHGH. This was a serious problem in the past, as people who developed immunity to rHGH saw treatment lose from 20% to 100% of its effectiveness, and children who needed it to grow normally didn’t. Eventually pharma and the FDA got extremely serious about aggregates and immunogenicity, and formulating peptides / proteins in a way that minimized aggregate formation to almost nothing became, and still is, a top priority.
Here’s some oxygen exposed lyophilized rHGH reconstituted to different concentrations, and the aggregates are highlighted:
The typical trash being injected, and why you should filter:
The FDA doesn’t tolerate even the potential risk of aggregates, as they told Novo Nordisk when reviewing an application for a new rHGH product, requiring it be transported and stored in much tighter temp controlled conditions than originally proposed:
And in this rejection of a new rHGH drug that cost $150 million to develop, because the level of immunogenicity it caused could make any future rHGH treatment less or completely ineffective for the patient who developed antibodies:
Finally, in the study below, the researchers realized that despite intentionally exposing lyophilized rHGH to high temps it was coming back as “98%+ pure”. Then they realized the damaged rHGH was forming large aggregates that got filtered out (all HPLC / SEC peptide analysis, like Jano, is filtered first) or got stuck in the machine. When they accounted for the “missing” rHGH, actual purity was more like 68%.
This aligns well with the “mass loss” in the chart posted above. BTW, “Mass loss” is effectively the same as “less pure”. Just subtract the loss from the original “purity” to get the actual purity of the product you’re using, ie, ~80% not 97%+, because you are, after all, injecting the “lost mass”, aka aggregates / impurities (unless you’re filtering it out), it’s not evaporating into thin air.
The “filtered” GLP samples chart on the right, in particular the two compounded specimens on the right, show how severe immune reactions can get in a sloppy (vs pharma) formulation, and how much that risk can be reduced by filtering out aggregates as illustrated by sample DS7 (the “pharma” samples on the left of that chart are already very low in contaminants and immunogenicity, sample DS8 is a disaster and must have some other immunogenicity trigger, my guess is the peptide itself is defective). ALL peptides are at risk of aggregation / immunogenicity, though rHGH is one of the most vulnerable. Filtering can minimize the risk. While everything may seem fine, I doubt anyone could feel a slowly developing immunity and loss of 20% or 30% effectiveness to a peptide over a couple of years:
Attachments
Last edited:
RetCurious
GLP-1 Enthusiast
CNCCurrency
GLP-1 Specialist
Thanks, lots to digest
Gt3294a
GLP-1 Enthusiast
I was thinking buzz kill. I will just pin away.
Of all the things I've tried that actually work, HGH is effective for various purposes: muscle recovery, lipolysis, body recomposition, skin improvement, and much more.
The downside is that you only see results after months of daily injections at doses of 2-4 IU, which makes it a bit expensive, although it's much cheaper now thanks to the gray market.
Furthermore, HGH has a unique characteristic: when combined with retatrutide and testosterone, it creates a unique synergy. I'm experiencing this firsthand, and it's absolutely incredible.
The downside is that you only see results after months of daily injections at doses of 2-4 IU, which makes it a bit expensive, although it's much cheaper now thanks to the gray market.
Furthermore, HGH has a unique characteristic: when combined with retatrutide and testosterone, it creates a unique synergy. I'm experiencing this firsthand, and it's absolutely incredible.
sfkid
GLP-1 Enthusiast
