I have heard from some due to the appetite increases it causes cutting with MK 677 may not be wise. Anyone do this successfully? Did you do something in particular to control it’s increased appetitive cravings successfully?
After reading the study I don’t think that study participants were in a calorie deficit we’re they? Also, weren’t they all elderly?I was going to add it in but didn't seem like a good fit for me at least. Increases cortisol, bloats, lowers insulin sensitivity overtime and makes you hungry.
Rip also found an interesting study of fat gain vs placebo.
Effects of an Oral Ghrelin Mimetic on Body Composition and Clinical Outcomes in Healthy Older Adults: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Growth hormone (GH) secretion and muscle mass decline from mid-puberty throughout life culminating in sarcopenia, frailty, decreased function and loss of independence.Determine if an oral ghrelin mimetic (MK-677) would enhance GH secretion into the young ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
average increase in limb fat in the MK-677 group (1.1 kg) was greater than with placebo (0.24 kg)
same. I think I have tried like 2 or 3 times now and failed. Also gives me calve/shin pumps making it hard to run more than a mile (and I typically run 10-15 a week) which affects cardioIncrease in hunger is too much for me to ever use it on a cut.
I am gonna give it a try. I am hoping the hunger pains won’t be too much. If I find myself binging while on it will probably just put it on the shelf and run it when I am bulking on a Superdrol cycle next year lol.same. I think I have tried like 2 or 3 times now and failed. Also gives me calve/shin pumps making it hard to run more than a mile (and I typically run 10-15 a week) which affects cardio
The study I cited pertained to younger individuals age 24 to 39 in a calorie deficit for a short period of 2 weeks (I am only going to be cutting and in a calorie deficit for 12 weeks and I am 42 years of age). The study you cited on the other hand was for very elderly people age 60 to 81 pertained to a VERY long period of 2 years (compared to my 12 week cut)Not trying to beat a dead horse but 2 wks, 8 people vs 2 yr 73/65 people had me ehh. Either way good luck bro!
Lol ok. Higher cortisol and hunger doesn't seem like a good fit for a cut imo. We just have different definitions of how to cut. Take care, logically.Not much brain activity is taken to reach the correct logical conclusion.
Comparing the people you cited as old af (as high as 80 years old) over 2 fukin years of eating their REGULAR dieT who are also NOT dieting to a man who is age 42 over a 12 week period who is in a caloric deficit, rather than using the much more similar study I cited that was over just a 2 week period with men in their 20s to 30s in a caloric deficit is much further removed from the facts to my actual situation , is it not?? Let me break it down simple for you. Age 80 or 30, which number is closer in comparison to age 42? A 2 week period compared to a 2 year period which is closer in time frame to a cutting period of 12 weeks?? As concerning your comment of, “higher cortisol doesn’t seem like a good fit” to a cut the study I cited in the short term explicitly stated, “NEITHER the serum CORTISOL nor the PRL response was significantly greater after 7 days of MK-677 dosing compared with 7 days of placebo” so what the f are you talking about the negative impact of cutting of “higher cortisol from cutting SHORT TERM on MK 677? Finally, please explain why you feel extrapolating the results of 80 year old men near death age in a study NOT regarding men on a diet over a LONG 2 year period is more reasonable to extrapolate and compare to a man near 40 in a caloric deficit for only a 12 week period ?? Also, your study said NOTHING and factored in NOTHING in regards to total protein nitrogen retention impact when in a caloric deficit, is this not an important measurement to factor in for a cutting cycle to a bodybuilder looking to retain lean mass buddy?Lol ok. Higher cortisol and hunger doesn't seem like a good fit for a cut imo. We just have different definitions of how to cut. Take care, logically.
I have to politely disagree to a point. The GH being released from one's pituitary, whether from ghrp, mk or any ghrelin mimetic, is the same. It is not like the pituitary has different GH it releases when one compound binds to the ghrelin receptor vs another vs natural release.MK for cutting is a no IMO. It doesn’t actually seem to do anything for fat loss (this is my personal experience but Mike Arnold has spoken about it a number of times recently on BFR, in fact in the latest episode it comes up and he said that he would use it in a bulk sometimes to drive hunger but that’s it).
The main issue is that people see ‘increased GH/IGF’ and assume that increased GH will do the same thing whether it’s from a ghrelin mimetic or hgh. Sadly they don’t. Just different compounds.
I personally get great recovery benefits from mk and I’ve used it in a cut before but not to aid the cut, just for the recovery at the start and then I dropped it midway and switched to tesamorelin for actual fat loss.
having read more on it recently I’d probably always cut with either tesamorelin or gh in the future.
tbh bro I used to think the same but smarter people than me are saying there’s a difference (I definitely not smart enough to fully understand it).I have to politely disagree to a point. The GH being released from one's pituitary, whether from ghrp, mk or any ghrelin mimetic, is the same. It is not like the pituitary has different GH it releases when one compound binds to the ghrelin receptor vs another vs natural release.
MK is hard, not impossible, to cut on. The increase in cortisol and prolactin coupled with never ending hunger and water retention is why it gets a bad rep. IF IF IF one can run it while controlling food intake and then wait two weeks after stopping to honestly assess one's results it can be used IMO.
Now maybe I am wrong but I am unaware of any science showing why the GH released on MK will not have the same lipolytic action as any other gh release.
Overall do I think most people can use MK successfully on a cut? HELL NO. Most people cannot successfully cut without including a compound that increases hunger and water retention lol.
If I had my pick I would use the following in this order:
1. Actual GH
2. Ipam/CJC
3. GHRP/CJC
4. MK/CJC
I just listened and he basically said the same thing I did. The GH released is the same but the other attributes of the drug make it less than ideal. I personally do not feel the prolactin, cortisol and hunger completely cancel out the lipolytic action/results of the gh being released. That being said MOST PEOPLE will not be able to use MK during a cut as most people already fail without adding additional challenges to a cutting cycle.tbh bro I used to think the same but smarter people than me are saying there’s a difference (I definitely not smart enough to fully understand it).
BFR Mike Arnold QnA episode 45 (most recent one). 11min 45s - listen to that. I respect Mike’s views on these things and Alex is well educated on gh. They discuss this in response to a question on using mk in a cut.
oh I wouldn’t disagree at all that you can cut on it, it’s just not ideal. I have cut on it before.I just listened and he basically said the same thing I did. The GH released is the same but the other attributes of the drug make it less than ideal. I personally do not feel the prolactin, cortisol and hunger completely cancel out the lipolytic action/results of the gh being released. That being said MOST PEOPLE will not be able to use MK during a cut as most people already fail without adding additional challenges to a cutting cycle.
I do agree with what they state: GH will be FAR SUPERIOR to MK on a cut.
I tend to be very nitpicky and would never say it is impossible to use MK on a cut but I do agree it is FAR from ideal for almost everyone, lol.
Would you be running any anabolics during the cut? They will be the main anti-catabolics, depending on how aggressive your deficit is.You guys think it would have a benefit of Amy extent of preventing muscle loss during the cut? That is more what I was hoping to get out of it, rather than accelerated fat loss (of course is the latter occurred too that would be great).
No anabolics except my 160 mg a week trt test. Just finished a cycle a couple of weeks ago and yes it was also a cut. I’m trying to get down to 13 percent body fat as a long term goal of mine. I normally only cut on anabolics to prevent muscle loss since I am 42. Was hoping MK might be something I can run between cycles that might at least help a bit in that regard.Would you be running any anabolics during the cut? They will be the main anti-catabolics, depending on how aggressive your deficit is.
I thought you were already cutting? Or had been for awhile?
Ah ok, you did say that earlier.Also gonna rotate and eat at a deficit only every other day because my cycle was a long 12 week cut so doing it this way will give me more of a psychological advantage to enable me your o continue cutting without having to completely sacrifice calories every day which has gotten old for me.
About a 1200 calorie a day deficit times 3 days cutting a week is 3600 calories and a pound is 3500 so hopefully I can lose some where in that neighborhood. Cutting slower should also help with muscle preservation.Ah ok, you did say that earlier.
So if Im following, youll do say 3 days of the week in deficit, 4 days maintainence? What will your weekly average deficit come out to?
Haha get of your high horse bro. Also, you are just wrong. Giving an appetite stimulant to a populi that isn't used to controlling their caloric intake and isn't used at monitoring their bodily functions (like appetite) is surely going to make them eat a lot more. I gave my ex gf Mk and she "didn't notice anything much" just gained a couple of pounds lol. And when she went off of it she kinda noticed she eats less and isn't hungry as much. @JoePaul39 worded his thoughts nicely.K bud. You need to work on anger if you ever want a decent conversation I'd be down but a 40+ year old man acting like my little nephew this isn't something I care for. Like I said good luck.
Depends on how much GH you pin bro. If you pin 2 iu in am and then 2 iu in PM your GH levels will be elevated through the whole day. And insulin sensitivity is a big issue on 4 IU's of rGH. Much more so then on Mk. And 4 IU is somewhat of a standard dose.I think the fact that it is 24/7 in it's action hurts on a cut as well. With synthetic you take your shot, go do your cardio and a number of hours later you are back to somewhat baseline. Having 24 hour a day GH elevation is far worse for insulin sensitivity vs 6-8 hours of exposure. Couple that with cortisol and prolactin and it can turn into a metabolic **** show real quick.
I was near 30 percent body fat when I began cutting and have gotten down to about 17 percent. I will meet my goals. Never been 13 percent because i never set the goal and tried. Like I said, if I can’t control the hunger pains I will just abandon using it so really no harm no foul.OP have you ever been lean before? This is not a knock but if you struggle to get below 13% as is I would advise against MK. The reason I say this is due to everything we have discussed in this thread. Someone who has to fight to get below 13% will most likely only increase the difficulty of doing so with MK.
Sounds good. I know I have been arguing the point that MK CAN BE used during a cut but I don't think it is a great option for most. I will be honest I am dropping it now myself. I love the fullness and pumps and I can control the hunger but it gets old having to fight appetite all day everyday when I already have a "healthy" appetite anyways. Good luck and keep it up you will reach your goals.I was near 30 percent body fat when I began cutting and have gotten down to about 17 percent. I will meet my goals. Never been 13 percent because i never set the goal and tried. Like I said, if I can’t control the hunger pains I will just abandon using it so really no harm no foul.
If this is a response to my writing; maybe you should have taken 5 more minutes to think and read a bit more thoroughly. But let me spare you the tedious task of actually using your head for a change: you have high baseline IGF1 brah. Mk has been shown in studies (proper studies) that it has a limit to how much it can elevate IGF1. This is expressed in percents in relation to baseline IGF1 readings. And baseline means; IGF1 levels of subjects (you know, the ones that were participating in the studies), prior to administration of Mk. This has been shown to be around 50% at the dosage of 25mg. Beyond that it's highly diminishing returns. And it's not that much lower at 15mg, a few percents.As to some of the numbers being thrown around in this thread, i have labs with IGF-1 at 316 and 322 on 12.5mg/day of MK at the age of 33. Yes rHGH will always be able to outperform as there is no limit to dosing beyond finances/risk tolerance and side effect tolerance but to say that MK cannot significantly raise IGF-1 is wrong.
You know it is possible to have a debate discussion without being a complete condescending jerk brah. It is attitudes like yours that have slowly been killing off forums. I feel sorry for you oh wise one. Have a great day.If this is a response to my writing; maybe you should have taken 5 more minutes to think and read a bit more thoroughly. But let me spare you the tedious task of actually using your head for a change: you have high baseline IGF1 brah. Mk has been shown in studies (proper studies) that it has a limit to how much it can elevate IGF1. This is expressed in percents in relation to baseline IGF1 readings. And baseline means; IGF1 levels of subjects (you know, the ones that were participating in the studies), prior to administration of Mk. This has been shown to be around 50% at the dosage of 25mg. Beyond that it's highly diminishing returns. And it's not that much lower at 15mg, a few percents.
And let me paint this even more clear. Your baseline IGF must be around 220 - 240. Which is high for your age; you are lucky. At the age of 32 I took 25mg Mk. My baseline was 170 and after Mk it was 240. So if OP does a baseline test and finds out his IGF1 is at 100 - 150, then I say screw MK for the purpose of fat loss and get some ipa or hex or rGH, which isn't that expensive to begin with (app 150€ for 100iu is the current norm).
Do you know what you IGF-1 was before MK?Sounds good. I know I have been arguing the point that MK CAN BE used during a cut but I don't think it is a great option for most. I will be honest I am dropping it now myself. I love the fullness and pumps and I can control the hunger but it gets old having to fight appetite all day everyday when I already have a "healthy" appetite anyways. Good luck and keep it up you will reach your goals.
As to some of the numbers being thrown around in this thread, i have labs with IGF-1 at 316 and 322 on 12.5mg/day of MK at the age of 33. Yes rHGH will always be able to outperform as there is no limit to dosing beyond finances/risk tolerance and side effect tolerance but to say that MK cannot significantly raise IGF-1 is wrong.
Unfortunately, those numbers are in my old yahoo email that I can no longer access. I was never out of range prior to use. I also was only using 12.5. This thread has some good numbers in it: https://anabolicminds.com/community/threads/update-bloodwork-study-of-4iu-gh-vs-mk677-similar-to-3-4-iu-gh.315876/Do you know what you IGF-1 was before MK?
Exactly. No way my igf is elevated only to 1-1.5 iu of gh equivalent. I would personally say more like 3 iu for sure. The difference in pumps and fullness is pretty massive.Ya'll should consider this, especially @JoePaul39 : Mk can't compare to synthetic GH because Mk works off of what your natural capacities of producing GH are. At 40 y/o your IGF1 is probably around 120, Mk can't elevate it more then 45 - 50%. This means your IGF will be elevated to a meagerly 180 max. That really isn't anything but your hunger effects will be just as high as young @CroLifter s hunger sides but his IGF1 gets elevated to 400 with Mk.
In comparison, synthetic rGH at 4 IU will elevate your IGF1 to 400, no matter what your age is. And IGF1 is inversely correlated to GH off course. It's hard measuring GH pulses, but you can safely judge the height your GH is elevated to by measuring your IGF.
So point being, I wouldn't use Mk for cutting purposes if older then, idk ..., let's say 35 ... I would definitely look at cjcdac or rGH. Or even hexarelin/ipamorelin for fasted cardio.
Yup, you're young, your baseline igf1 is high. But no way is your igf raised by 3 IU : D If you added 3 IU on top of your natural GH production, you would be at app 5 IU haha and your IGF would be much higher. You must understand that the 400 IGF result you get from 4 IU's of growth is bc your natural production of GH get's shut down. If your natural production would stay up, your IGF would be 400 + your natural IGF = app 600 ... So no, Mk is raising your IGF1 by a max off 50% as has been studied and this can not be nowhere near 3IU. If you were a 10 y/o kid, with levels around 500, then the Mk's IGF elevation would be equivalent to 2 - 3IU.Exactly. No way my igf is elevated only to 1-1.5 iu of gh equivalent. I would personally say more like 3 iu for sure. The difference in pumps and fullness is pretty massive.
To me its about as equivalent as going from natty to 250mg test e a week, using mk677 as far as pumps and fullness goes.
Yes, all anabolics are nutrient partitioners. GDA's basically, so when on cycle, especially when on DHT's or tren like you mentioned, your blood sugar will be better.Also, this is pure broscience, but i seem to suffer more form this crashes when only using mk. When on aas also, especially when i was using tren ace, those crashes didnt seem so intense. Idk, perhaps tren helps control blood sugar to an extent. Aas in theory should, and tren is especially powerful at nutrient partitioning.
For sure, I got pissed off, sorry if I offended you little girl. I hope daddy buys you an ice cream.You know it is possible to have a debate discussion without being a complete condescending jerk brah. It is attitudes like yours that have slowly been killing off forums. I feel sorry for you oh wise one. Have a great day.
You win, and in such a classy fashion.For sure, I got pissed off, sorry if I offended you little girl. I hope daddy buys you an ice cream.
Joking aside, I agree, but I also hate it when I (or somebody else) take the time and actually write something productive - and very much true - and then somebody only skimps through the posts and actually arrogantly negates them (which is also disrespectful). This is just as destructive and that happens so many times here I don't care to explain (and I am not exempt from this). And this is, as you say, hampering the forums, where as a little hostility, but still with properly helpful and exact content, doesn't do much damage. That only insulted your fragile ego, where as your post actually contributed false information and that is more "destructive". And you were so insulted that you couldn't even acknowledge you are wrong (or continue the discussion in a factually productive manner), which is also more inclined with the behavior of the little girl, that I apologized to in my first paragraph, then the grown up man I am supposed to be talking to right now.
"Either way if more calories out than in you'll lose weight, but seemed to me like mk in a cut is somewhat counter productive. Not telling you not to, as I know some do, just didn't seem like a fit for me."Haha get of your high horse bro. Also, you are just wrong. Giving an appetite stimulant to a populi that isn't used to controlling their caloric intake and isn't used at monitoring their bodily functions (like appetite) is surely going to make them eat a lot more. I gave my ex gf Mk and she "didn't notice anything much" just gained a couple of pounds lol. And when she went off of it she kinda noticed she eats less and isn't hungry as much.
Not trying to prove anything as right or wrong at all, just pointing out some irony.I also hate it when I (or somebody else) take the time and actually write something productive - and very much true - and then somebody only skimps through the posts and actually arrogantly negates them (which is also disrespectful).
In all practicality using mk677 i got igf1 lvls at least as high as if i had used 3 iu of pharma gh at a fraction of the costYup, you're young, your baseline igf1 is high. But no way is your igf raised by 3 IU : D If you added 3 IU on top of your natural GH production, you would be at app 5 IU haha and your IGF would be much higher. You must understand that the 400 IGF result you get from 4 IU's of growth is bc your natural production of GH get's shut down. If your natural production would stay up, your IGF would be 400 + your natural IGF = app 600 ... So no, Mk is raising your IGF1 by a max off 50% as has been studied and this can not be nowhere near 3IU. If you were a 10 y/o kid, with levels around 500, then the Mk's IGF elevation would be equivalent to 2 - 3IU.
Yes, all anabolics are nutrient partitioners. GDA's basically, so when on cycle, especially when on DHT's or tren like you mentioned, your blood sugar will be better.
Any thoughts on bumping the test a little? A higher amount, even 250-300 would make a big difference during a cut.Well this thread has just turned into all our arguing. Anyway, took MK yesterday for the first time and can already tell half way through today what you all have been telling me, probably not good for a cut. The hunger increase is very high so I not going to continue. Also the negative impact on insulin sensitivity is concerning even though I am not diabetic because on fasting blood glucose tests my blood sugar always tips almost to the too high point, thus it would be foolish to risk pushing myself toward the diabetic side just to run MK.
I am just going to cut on my 160 mg trt cruise test dose. Like @Hyde said though MK 677 might help preserve muscle on a cut the negatives like insulin sensitivity, increased hunger, and increased water retention probably outweigh the positives and any muscle lost on the cut can be easily regained through muscle memory (not to mention when I cycle for mass). Will probably be selling my MK 677 (less the one tab I took) in the supplement auction classified section of the forum for half price retail for anyone interested. It is tabs from board sponsor Pure Rawz.
No, I have trt bloods coming up.Any thoughts on bumping the test a little? A higher amount, even 250-300 would make a big difference during a cut.