Case for using peptides along with rhgh

Topic created · 5 Posts · 384 Views
  • I’ve seen many people, on this board and others, claim that it would be a waist to use peptides along with exogenous gh. Saying things like, “negative feedback bro” or “you just don’t get it” and “it’d just be a waist”.

    From my understanding, the negative feedback is caused by the pituitary releasing more somatostatin due to the high amount of circulating Gh. However, we can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that one of ghrp’s modes of action is an antagonistic effect to somatostatin.

    This study shows that the mean gh change of subjects, whom were given rhgh and hex 3 hours later, was almost as high as the control group.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8787952/

    This could possibly mean that utilizing both peps and rhgh would give one the best bang for his buck. Not to mention the fact the your body will be getting the 20k isoform as well which has been shown to inhibit the growth of cancer cells (breast cancer at the very least) where the 22k isoform by itself causes rapid growth.

    Im not trying to come off as pretentious with this post. I want to get a discussion going on the topic, and learn why so many people think that negative feedback loop in regard to testosterone = negative feedback of gh when, from what I’ve read, that isn’t the case at all. Looking forward to any responses from members that can tell me why peptides wouldn’t be a good addition to rhgh backed by an actual understanding rather than bro science, or whether they could be a good addition and surmise what types of protocols we could utilize for the highest return/lowest risk.

    Let’s get it boys.

  • [quote=“uwotm8” pid=‘58063’ dateline=‘1561071625’]
    I’ve seen many people, on this board and others, claim that it would be a waist to use peptides along with exogenous gh. Saying things like, “negative feedback bro” or “you just don’t get it” and “it’d just be a waist”.

    From my understanding, the negative feedback is caused by the pituitary releasing more somatostatin due to the high amount of circulating Gh. However, we can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that one of ghrp’s modes of action is an antagonistic effect to somatostatin.

    This study shows that the mean gh change of subjects, whom were given rhgh and hex 3 hours later, was almost as high as the control group.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8787952/

    This could possibly mean that utilizing both peps and rhgh would give one the best bang for his buck. Not to mention the fact the your body will be getting the 20k isoform as well which has been shown to inhibit the growth of cancer cells (breast cancer at the very least) where the 22k isoform by itself causes rapid growth.

    Im not trying to come off as pretentious with this post. I want to get a discussion going on the topic, and learn why so many people think that negative feedback loop in regard to testosterone = negative feedback of gh when, from what I’ve read, that isn’t the case at all. Looking forward to any responses from members that can tell me why peptides wouldn’t be a good addition to rhgh backed by an actual understanding rather than bro science, or whether they could be a good addition and surmise what types of protocols we could utilize for the highest return/lowest risk.

    Let’s get it boys.
    [/quote]

    I’m confused as to how this study led you to the conclusion that the GH was beneficial? Those who DIDNT get pre-treatment with GH had higher AUC and incremental changes in GH after hexarelin treatment. The GH slightly attenuated the response, so how are you interpreting that to mean that it would somehow be beneficial with peptides or amplify their effects? What this study ultimately suggests is that the peptides are able to counter the negative feedback after you inject rHGH. But by using the rHGH, the hexarelin has to essentially “fight an upward” battle more so than if you don’t take rHGH. Seems like you’d just be better off injecting EITHER rHGH or GHRP/GHRH as opposed to alternating between both on the same day

  • [quote=“BioBuild” pid=‘62789’ dateline=‘1564350409’]
    [quote=“uwotm8” pid=‘58063’ dateline=‘1561071625’]
    I’ve seen many people, on this board and others, claim that it would be a waist to use peptides along with exogenous gh. Saying things like, “negative feedback bro” or “you just don’t get it” and “it’d just be a waist”.

    From my understanding, the negative feedback is caused by the pituitary releasing more somatostatin due to the high amount of circulating Gh. However, we can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that one of ghrp’s modes of action is an antagonistic effect to somatostatin.

    This study shows that the mean gh change of subjects, whom were given rhgh and hex 3 hours later, was almost as high as the control group.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8787952/

    This could possibly mean that utilizing both peps and rhgh would give one the best bang for his buck. Not to mention the fact the your body will be getting the 20k isoform as well which has been shown to inhibit the growth of cancer cells (breast cancer at the very least) where the 22k isoform by itself causes rapid growth.

    Im not trying to come off as pretentious with this post. I want to get a discussion going on the topic, and learn why so many people think that negative feedback loop in regard to testosterone = negative feedback of gh when, from what I’ve read, that isn’t the case at all. Looking forward to any responses from members that can tell me why peptides wouldn’t be a good addition to rhgh backed by an actual understanding rather than bro science, or whether they could be a good addition and surmise what types of protocols we could utilize for the highest return/lowest risk.

    Let’s get it boys.
    [/quote]

    I’m confused as to how this study led you to the conclusion that the GH was beneficial? Those who DIDNT get pre-treatment with GH had higher AUC and incremental changes in GH after hexarelin treatment. The GH slightly attenuated the response, so how are you interpreting that to mean that it would somehow be beneficial with peptides or amplify their effects? What this study ultimately suggests is that the peptides are able to counter the negative feedback after you inject rHGH. But by using the rHGH, the hexarelin has to essentially “fight an upward” battle more so than if you don’t take rHGH. Seems like you’d just be better off injecting EITHER rHGH or GHRP/GHRH as opposed to alternating between both on the same day
    [/quote]

    I’m quite aware of what the purpose of the study was. Like you said, the response to hex 3h post rhgh was only slightly attenuated. That sure differs from the “common knowledge” of ghrp/ghrh being ineffective when taking rhgh. Wouldn’t you agree? So I’ll ask you this, why wouldn’t it be better/more effective to create another big gh pulse 3h post rhgh administration? For our purposes, the more large gh pulses the better, and-again-gh pulse from hex 3h post rhgh was only slightly attenuated, so the pulse is almost as big as without taking rhgh. I’m not saying that rhgh amplifies, or is synergistic with peptides, but I am saying that creating more big pulses with both rhgh and peptides could give more benefit for our purposes and possibly cut down the cost of running rhgh only. So please, explain how you came to your assertion of either/or is better. Why would creating a large gh pulse 3h post rhgh administration be a negative here?

  • [quote=“uwotm8” pid=‘63660’ dateline=‘1564862552’]
    [quote=“BioBuild” pid=‘62789’ dateline=‘1564350409’]
    [quote=“uwotm8” pid=‘58063’ dateline=‘1561071625’]
    I’ve seen many people, on this board and others, claim that it would be a waist to use peptides along with exogenous gh. Saying things like, “negative feedback bro” or “you just don’t get it” and “it’d just be a waist”.

    From my understanding, the negative feedback is caused by the pituitary releasing more somatostatin due to the high amount of circulating Gh. However, we can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that one of ghrp’s modes of action is an antagonistic effect to somatostatin.

    This study shows that the mean gh change of subjects, whom were given rhgh and hex 3 hours later, was almost as high as the control group.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8787952/

    This could possibly mean that utilizing both peps and rhgh would give one the best bang for his buck. Not to mention the fact the your body will be getting the 20k isoform as well which has been shown to inhibit the growth of cancer cells (breast cancer at the very least) where the 22k isoform by itself causes rapid growth.

    Im not trying to come off as pretentious with this post. I want to get a discussion going on the topic, and learn why so many people think that negative feedback loop in regard to testosterone = negative feedback of gh when, from what I’ve read, that isn’t the case at all. Looking forward to any responses from members that can tell me why peptides wouldn’t be a good addition to rhgh backed by an actual understanding rather than bro science, or whether they could be a good addition and surmise what types of protocols we could utilize for the highest return/lowest risk.

    Let’s get it boys.
    [/quote]

    I’m confused as to how this study led you to the conclusion that the GH was beneficial? Those who DIDNT get pre-treatment with GH had higher AUC and incremental changes in GH after hexarelin treatment. The GH slightly attenuated the response, so how are you interpreting that to mean that it would somehow be beneficial with peptides or amplify their effects? What this study ultimately suggests is that the peptides are able to counter the negative feedback after you inject rHGH. But by using the rHGH, the hexarelin has to essentially “fight an upward” battle more so than if you don’t take rHGH. Seems like you’d just be better off injecting EITHER rHGH or GHRP/GHRH as opposed to alternating between both on the same day
    [/quote]

    I’m quite aware of what the purpose of the study was. Like you said, the response to hex 3h post rhgh was only slightly attenuated. That sure differs from the “common knowledge” of ghrp/ghrh being ineffective when taking rhgh. Wouldn’t you agree? So I’ll ask you this, why wouldn’t it be better/more effective to create another big gh pulse 3h post rhgh administration? For our purposes, the more large gh pulses the better, and-again-gh pulse from hex 3h post rhgh was only slightly attenuated, so the pulse is almost as big as without taking rhgh. I’m not saying that rhgh amplifies, or is synergistic with peptides, but I am saying that creating more big pulses with both rhgh and peptides could give more benefit for our purposes and possibly cut down the cost of running rhgh only. So please, explain how you came to your assertion of either/or is better. Why would creating a large gh pulse 3h post rhgh administration be a negative here?
    [/quote]

    I’m saying why not just stick to the GHRP/GHRH combo in lieu of rHGH? You can create the same (if not even greater) pulses without the need for spending a ton on rHGH. I mean, I guess you could alternate between pinning peptides and rHGH without necessarily reducing the benefits of either, but from a practicality and cost standpoint, I think it would be wiser to just use the peptides. Just my opinion, but it’s an interesting/promising study nonetheless

  • Uwotm8, I was doing some research and apparently this is what another forum user has done with good success:

    Wake up:
    Mod GRF and GHRP-6 (needed appetite boost and my cortisol is always too high for GHRP-2)
    10-15 minutes later once my pituitary is done firing, 1iu GH

    Mid day 3.5-4 hours after last shot
    Mod GRF and GHRP-6
    10-15 minutes later once my pituitary is done firing, 1iu GH

    Before dinner 3.5-4 hours after last shot
    Mod GRF and GHRP-6
    10-15 minutes later once my pituitary is done firing, 1iu GH

    Before bed
    Mod GRF and GHRP-6
    NO GH

    ** BONUS 5th shot, if I woke up middle of the night I did just a shot of peptides to get my nightly pulse increased. The 1iu GH doses keep your pituitary from shutting down, along with the peps keeping it running.

    He claimed this helped him get his IGF-1 levels over 700, which is pretty astonishing. Unfortunately I couldn’t find any bloodwork or labs to prove that but it seems like it may be a smart way to combine GH and Peps.

Log in to reply