[Bobaslaw]

Here is an interesting study depicting the increased anabolic effects of GH and IGF-1, when used simultaneously.

Full Study :

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...6&blobtype=pdf

Abstract:

Enhancement of the anabolic effects of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor I by use of both agents simultaneously.

S R Kupfer, L E Underwood, R C Baxter, and D R Clemmons
Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill 27599.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract:

The use of growth hormone (GH) as an anabolic agent is limited by its tendency to cause hyperglycemia and by its inability to reverse nitrogen wasting in some catabolic conditions. In a previous study comparing the anabolic actions of GH and IGF-I (insulin-like growth factor I), we observed that intravenous infusions of IGF-I (12 micrograms/kg ideal body wt [IBW]/h) attenuated nitrogen wasting to a degree comparable to GH given subcutaneously at a standard dose of 0.05 mg/kg IBW per d. IGF-I, however, had a tendency to cause hypoglycemia. In the present study, we treated seven calorically restricted (20 kcal/kg IBW per d) normal volunteers with a combination of GH and IGF-I (using the same doses as in the previous study) and compared its effects on anabolism and carbohydrate metabolism to treatment with IGF-I alone. The GH/IGF-I combination caused significantly greater nitrogen retention (262 +/- 43 mmol/d, mean +/- SD) compared to IGF-I alone (108 +/- 29 mmol/d; P < 0.001). GH/IGF-I treatment resulted in substantial urinary potassium conservation (34 +/- 3 mmol/d, mean +/- SE; P < 0.001), suggesting that most protein accretion occurred in muscle and connective tissue. GH attenuated the hypoglycemia induced by IGF-I as indicated by fewer hypoglycemic episodes and higher capillary blood glucose concentrations on GH/IGF-I (4.3 +/- 1.0 mmol/liter, mean +/- SD) compared to IGF-I alone (3.8 +/- 0.8 mmol/liter; P < 0.001). IGF-I caused a marked decline in C-peptide (1,165 +/- 341 pmol/liter; mean +/- SD) compared to the GH/IGF-I combination (2,280 +/- 612 pmol/liter; P < 0.001), suggesting maintenance of normal carbohydrate metabolism with the latter regimen. GH/IGF-I produced higher serum IGF-I concentrations (1,854 +/- 708 micrograms/liter; mean +/- SD) compared to IGF-I only treatment (1,092 +/- 503 micrograms/liter; P < 0.001). This observation was associated with increased concentrations of IGF binding protein 3 and acid-labile subunit on GH/IGF-I treatment and decreased concentrations on IGF-I alone. These results suggest that the combination of GH and IGF-I treatment is substantially more anabolic than either IGF-I or GH alone. GH/IGF-I treatment also attenuates the hypoglycemia caused by IGF-I alone. GH/IGF-I treatment could have important applications in diseases associated with catabolism.

[mattikus]

Another good find Bob. My monkey may try this in the future.

[Bobaslaw]

Originally Posted by mattikus

Another good find Bob. My monkey may try this in the future.

Oh Ya! And someday your monkey too, will bask in all the glory!

[BLACK747]

good post as usual bob

[pumbertot]

this monkey has done this to great effect. soon the world will be mine! mwuhahahahahahahahah.

[Cal]

Any idea what doses this translates to?
I mean, if we use a full dose of GH and full dose of LR3, then it's kind of a no-brainer. But if it's half and half, that makes it worthwhile. Any ideas?

[Cal]

Hello?
What's the point to posting this study stuff (as most of this board does for some reason) if there's no functional information?

[papapumpsd]

Originally Posted by Cal

Hello?
What's the point to posting this study stuff (as most of this board does for some reason) if there's no functional information?

What do you mean? SCIENTIFIC STUDIES = KNOWLEDGE

[Cal]

Originally Posted by papapumpsd

What do you mean? SCIENTIFIC STUDIES = KNOWLEDGE

Pfft. Only on the rare ones that are legit (unbiased studies are far and few between nowadays) and on the ones that actually pan out in real life. Stick around a few years and watch. There's always studies for things that don't even end up being effective to any worthwhile degree. And it's always the 180lb "smart guys" who are into the studies, but it isn't working for them.

Now how does this one translate into reality? I'd like to put the proper doses together.

[papapumpsd]

Originally Posted by Cal

Pfft. Only on the rare ones that are legit (unbiased studies are far and few between nowadays) and on the ones that actually pan out in real life. Stick around a few years and watch. There's always studies for things that don't even end up being effective to any worthwhile degree. And it's always the 180lb "smart guys" who are into the studies, but it isn't working for them.

Now how does this one translate into reality? I'd like to put the proper doses together.

Cal, we read scientific studies for the anecdotal evidence reagarding a specific chemical and/or therapy. These peptides are not perscription drugs. This means that clinical trials (Phase I, II, III) have NOT been performed on them. And this means that human data specific to YOUR need(s) is NOT available. So, to somehow generate a cause-and-effect relationship relevant to peptides, we can piece together scientific data on non-human animal models to hopefully come up with a strategy that will safely work in humans.

Regarding "legit" studies, I am not sure why PhDs and MDs would produce bunk studies. While I have not published scientific studies, the research I have been involved with (microbiological and molec. bio.) have been 100% honest. We have no need nor desire to produce misleading data. It's truly 100% pointless.

And the 180lb. "smartguys" are A-OK in my book.....I don't judge the intelligence of a person by their weight. MD/PhD researchers are doing research right now on peptides, and I'll bet they don't use them personally. They have animals to test.

Hope this helps.

-Papa!-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by papapumpsd

Cal, we read scientific studies for the anecdotal evidence reagarding a specific chemical and/or therapy. These peptides are not perscription drugs. This means that clinical trials (Phase I, II, III) have NOT been performed on them. And this means that human data specific to YOUR need(s) is NOT available. So, to somehow generate a cause-and-effect relationship relevant to peptides, we can piece together scientific data on non-human animal models to hopefully come up with a strategy that will safely work in humans.

Regarding "legit" studies, I am not sure why PhDs and MDs would produce bunk studies. While I have not published scientific studies, the research I have been involved with (microbiological and molec. bio.) have been 100% honest. We have no need nor desire to produce misleading data. It's truly 100% pointless.

And the 180lb. "smartguys" are A-OK in my book.....I don't judge the intelligence of a person by their weight. MD/PhD researchers are doing research right now on peptides, and I'll bet they don't use them personally. They have animals to test.

Hope this helps.

-Papa!-

This little arguing is cute, but serves no purpose. Do you have any ideas on translating this into human dosages?

[Grunt76]

Originally Posted by Cal

Pfft. Only on the rare ones that are legit (unbiased studies are far and few between nowadays) and on the ones that actually pan out in real life. Stick around a few years and watch. There's always studies for things that don't even end up being effective to any worthwhile degree. And it's always the 180lb "smart guys" who are into the studies, but it isn't working for them.

Now how does this one translate into reality? I'd like to put the proper doses together.

I'm 5'9" and 240lbs and 10% bf.

I'm the geekiest guy around here.

[jediclampet]

Originally Posted by Cal

Pfft. Only on the rare ones that are legit (unbiased studies are far and few between nowadays) and on the ones that actually pan out in real life. Stick around a few years and watch. There's always studies for things that don't even end up being effective to any worthwhile degree. And it's always the 180lb "smart guys" who are into the studies, but it isn't working for them.

Now how does this one translate into reality? I'd like to put the proper doses together.

I have done HGH and IGF together many times and can tell you from personal experience that they are definitely synergistic. I know of many others that will say the same.

[babyblu]

Originally Posted by jediclampet

I have done HGH and IGF together many times and can tell you from personal experience that they are definitely synergistic. I know of many others that will say the same.

Agreed.

bb

[papapumpsd]

Originally Posted by Grunt76

I'm 5'9" and 240lbs and 10% bf.

I'm the geekiest guy around here.

5'9", 240, 10%....LOL, you are a monstrosity! My 12 month goal is to be 5'8", 200lbs 6-7%! you are beastly Grunt.

[Grunt76]

Originally Posted by papapumpsd

5'9", 240, 10%....LOL, you are a monstrosity! My 12 month goal is to be 5'8", 200lbs 6-7%! you are beastly Grunt.

Many people have been saying that about me lately, I wonder why? I look at my stats on paper and go, whoa, that looks pretty good, then look in the mirror and see a frail, fat old guy. WTF?