I have noticed that HGHup has become a relatively popular supplement lately, and this post is dedicated to addressing its astonishingly exaggerated marketing claims. I've used Applied Nutriceutical's HGHup before and found it to be a mild performance boost, nothing that screams injectable-like GH results. They report that it shows a 2,379% increase in serum GH levels. Surely, a reputable company like this wouldnt make such outlandish claims backed up by a study that is not peer-reviewed and involves only THREE MEN TESTED WITH NO CONTROL GROUP.
HGHup user's note blood serum gh concentrations of 11.8 ng/mL? These are blood levels only achieved by 4-6 IU's of GH a day. I guess AppNut discovered the oral GH delivery mechanism that eluded the entire pharmaceutical industry? Lets be real people...
Why do these companies lie to us and expect us to believe their bull****? At least make it a little more believable before you shove it down our throats.
Hence the term pilot study- to your point, this would be very hard to get published in a journal, but that wasn't the point in doing this exercise. This was more of a starting point to validate our hypothesis, to get a better idea of what was going on in terms of serum GH values, and to fill in some blanks concerning half-lives of components and how they affect GH levels. We would like to run several more with larger sample size, statistical analysis, and run it for a longer (12-24 hour) period of time. The results we got on this first directional study def. point us in the right direction for the next round of research, plus they let us know a great deal more about what the product does, from a time-variable standpoint. From the data, we now know that the product elevates GH, and not just over the first 90-120 minutes, but that the elevation continues all the way out to 150 minutes, and serum GH levels continued to increase up to this point.
This happened to have favorable results (as we hypothesized). You also try to do everything in groups of 3- one time is chance, two times can still be coincidence, but three times has an exponentially greater correlation. Same with validation studies on machinery and processes that we do for our manufacturing equipment- you try to validate 3 separate commercially-ran lots against your specs for each machine to ascertain what your control limits are going to be- and then you do it for the entire process. If it comes out messed up on the first one, you have some tweaking to do. It is like a synthesis reaction in chem- if you mess up the first step, why proceed? This situation isn't much different- just with humans, one of our supplements, and we are using blood tests to validate instead diagnostic equipment.......
Same reason you have 3-Phase research with pharmaceuticals- first one doesn't come out right, you need to fix some things.....
Once your hypothesis on a smaller sampling size is confirmed or denied, then you move on to a larger population size. No sense starting with 25 subjects, expending large amounts of monetary resources, and have unfavorable results, and then have to re-do the formulation components/%'s and recommendations. Same goes for your mfg. and other processes used to make dietary supplements- if your first trial run does not come out correctly, you may need to look at all the variables again, before you proceed.....