H Geee H Testing
-
@diegoc
No clown feet like Pete? Or prominent brow? LOL Seriously, you've got it dialed in. I'm sitting at 212 (Z 1.1) and feeling a little inadequate while messing around with CJC/IPA. Hmmm. -
Yeah I need a little boost. Testing is expensive though when not done in a group.
Contacted John at AFI and got good pricing (better than published on website) but its still $400-500 for all those tests. More than I paid for the HGH (QSC $0.38/IU) -
@diegoc
No clown feet like Pete? Or prominent brow? LOL Seriously, you've got it dialed in. I'm sitting at 212 (Z 1.1) and feeling a little inadequate while messing around with CJC/IPA. Hmmm.@diegoc
No clown feet like Pete? Or prominent brow? LOL Seriously, you've got it dialed in. I'm sitting at 212 (Z 1.1) and feeling a little inadequate while messing around with CJC/IPA. Hmmm.180 - 220 igf-1 score is ideal for anti-aging and overall health benefits while minimizing side effects/cancer issues long term. I wouldn't muck around with it at a 212 score, that's plenty of igf-1 floating ground to do it's job of tissue repair/healing/lypolisis/sleep while minimizing run away cell proliferation.
There is also benefits to keeping the natural order of those pituitary somatotrophs working and the whole natural process of the HTPA axis going. If you weren't getting any response from secretagogues and your igf-1 was <100 then I'd say absolutely go the HGH route.
-
Im at 2iu and just above the ref range. i dont think its bad unless i was over 400 however Im going to try the same dose as @randy 1.5iu to see were i land.
The peptide game is to use the effective min dose on everything
Im at 2iu and just above the ref range. i dont think its bad unless i was over 400 however Im going to try the same dose as @randy 1.5iu to see were i land.
The peptide game is to use the effective min dose on everything
The largest meta analysis was pulled from this
Association between IGF-1 levels ranges and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13540
Worth checking out. This was done across large population groups so there are caveats.
120–160 ng/mL — the identified low-risk floor of the curve in the pooled data. However, even in the 180-220 range the extra igf-1 can be seen as worth the slightly increased risks due to benefits. Once you go above 220 though the relative risk starts to sharply increase.
-
Im at 2iu and just above the ref range. i dont think its bad unless i was over 400 however Im going to try the same dose as @randy 1.5iu to see were i land.
The peptide game is to use the effective min dose on everything
The largest meta analysis was pulled from this
Association between IGF-1 levels ranges and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13540
Worth checking out. This was done across large population groups so there are caveats.
120–160 ng/mL — the identified low-risk floor of the curve in the pooled data. However, even in the 180-220 range the extra igf-1 can be seen as worth the slightly increased risks due to benefits. Once you go above 220 though the relative risk starts to sharply increase.
@Neil-McCauley I have always heard 150 was the goldie locks zone for longevity and this chart now helps me understand that statement. Thanks!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login