# GH releasing peps & GH really a good combination?



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

I have been doing some reading recently on Gh realeasing peps and came across something quite interesting on pubmed

here is the interesting part

"



The GH-releasing activity of GHRPs is synergistic with that of GHRH, is not affected by opioid receptor antagonists, such as naloxone, and is only blunted by inhibitory influences, including neurotransmitters, glucose, free fatty acids, gluco corticoids, recombinant human GH and even exogenous somatostatin, *which are known to almost abolish the effect of GHRH.*

*
*
​
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9186261


​
So this says that using exogenous GH at the same time as GHRH basically destroys the effect of the GHRH

Now what i have read here is that taking GH 10 mins or so after peps would lead to a greater GH pulse...

So now am very confused, can anyone shed any light on this or have any views?

Is this pubmed study wrong or is it a waste using GH in combo with GHRP/GHRH as the GHRH effect is neutralised by the GH?

Also had never heard anything about glucose or fatty acids disabling the effectiveness of GHRH:confused1:


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

That's why i leave it half an hour as peps release will be stopped dead by synthGh or food.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

yeh that makes sense. but form what i have read here a lot of people are spreading gh doses throughout the day along with pep use...and i know rGH stays in your blood for a good number of hours, so if you are using this protocol are you not likely to be killing or at least seriously damaging the effectiveness of your pep use like this? if the pubmed study is to be believed


----------



## Conscript (Sep 5, 2010)

Now I'm a bit rusty on hgh/ghrp/ghrh as I kind of lost interest once I have set protocols, but I don't remember ever reading that ghrh followed by gh was the way to go, I read a thread on dats that touched on the benefits of using ghrp followed by hgh as the pulse from the ghrp was complimented by the hgh wave...I suppose having 2 medating waves (ghrh/hgh) would be p1ssing into the wind a bit...?


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

yeh i'm pretty sure i have read on here quite recently that peps(combo) and then gh 10-15mins after was the way to go.

i think the ghrp and gh combo that you say dat suggests would be fine according to the pubmed study as apparently it is only ghrh that is destroyed by GH...


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> yeh that makes sense. but form what i have read here a lot of people are spreading gh doses throughout the day along with pep use...and i know rGH stays in your blood for a good number of hours, so if you are using this protocol are you not likely to be killing or at least seriously damaging the effectiveness of your pep use like this? if the pubmed study is to be believed


I too doubt you can use combo more than three times in one day.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

biglbs said:


> I too doubt you can use combo more than three times in one day.


I don't think you can use the combo any times(if the study is correct) unless you are certain all exogenous GH has cleared your system as otherwise the GHRH will be of no effect.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

I would add that i don't think GHRH IS AS GOOD AS GHRP/1295 combo,so will not use it again!So maybe fact there someplace? :confused1:


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> I don't think you can use the combo any times(if the study is correct) unless you are certain all exogenous GH has cleared your system as otherwise the GHRH will be of no effect.


Hence Ghrh being a lesser mortal Imo


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

biglbs said:


> I would add that i don't think GHRH IS AS GOOD AS GHRP/1295 combo,so will not use it again!So maybe fact there someplace? :confused1:


GHRH is 1295 lobes. What ya meaning bro?


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Tassotti said:


> GHRH is 1295 lobes. What ya meaning bro?


yeh thats what i was thinking...but my pep knowledge is a bit sketchy!


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Tassotti said:


> GHRH is 1295 lobes. What ya meaning bro?


Not and in combo with no cleared synth gh ,it must clear from last dose.or is a waste of time ...sorry to confuse?!


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Conscript said:


> Now I'm a bit rusty on hgh/ghrp/ghrh as I kind of lost interest once I have set protocols, but I don't remember ever reading that ghrh followed by gh was the way to go, I read a thread on dats that touched on the benefits of using ghrp followed by hgh as the pulse from the ghrp was complimented by the hgh wave...I suppose having 2 medating waves (ghrh/hgh) would be p1ssing into the wind a bit...?


out of interest do you mind saying what you're protocol is?


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Don't forget you mean non dac,as it is different!

With Dac is what i thought you meant too mate.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> yeh i'm pretty sure i have read on here quite recently that peps(combo) and then gh 10-15mins after was the way to go.
> 
> i think the ghrp and gh combo that you say dat suggests would be fine according to the pubmed study as apparently it is only ghrh that is destroyed by GH...


Lookin back here i read it wrong,sorry mate.


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

How many bottles of wine you had lobes ?


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

How does synth gh work?

How long does it stay in the body?


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Tassotti said:


> How many bottles of wine you had lobes ?


why?Nosey cvnt?


----------



## Conscript (Sep 5, 2010)

goonerton said:


> out of interest do you mind saying what you're protocol is?


Well I have used a few different ones, mainly due to what I've read, sometimes availaity and cost being primarly reasons for change

I was doing sat dose ghrp 6 plus hgh 1iu ten mins later, up to 4 times daily...whilst cutting

ghrh/ghrp sat doses X 3 per day, morning/midday/before bed plus hgh and slin around workouts...whilst bulking

I've mixed and matched a lot but these are the ones I have really stuck with before...I only use ghrh/ghrp/hgh for anti-aging purposes, although I ultilitise their actions whilst cutting through fasted periods/fasted excercies to expend those FFA's for added fat buring, not bothered about their igf actions as slin will **** all over them anyway.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Tassotti said:


> How does synth gh work?
> 
> How long does it stay in the body?


Too many to even start on that:lol:It is sat now fook off!


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

biglbs said:


> Lookin back here i read it wrong,sorry mate.


lol no probs mate, from my limited reading i was under the impression that dac /non dac/ grf etc etc, were all GHRH


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Conscript said:


> Well I have used a few different ones, mainly due to what I've read, sometimes availaity and cost being primarly reasons for change
> 
> I was doing sat dose ghrp 6 plus hgh 1iu ten mins later, up to 4 times daily...whilst cutting
> 
> ...


I still think sat dose then 20-30 mins but hay?


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> lol no probs mate, from my limited reading i was under the impression that dac /non dac/ grf etc etc, were all GHRH


Non dac effect on ghrp2 is far longer,than Dac,upto 90%,it increases it like an amp.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

It may only be a slight change to profile,but can be a big change to effect,hence all variations mate.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Conscript said:


> Well I have used a few different ones, mainly due to what I've read, sometimes availaity and cost being primarly reasons for change
> 
> I was doing sat dose ghrp 6 plus hgh 1iu ten mins later, up to 4 times daily...whilst cutting
> 
> ...


yeh i'm just wondering (if that pubmed study is to believed) is it a waste using a GHRP/GHRH combo if there is any exogenous GH still in your system...


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

biglbs said:


> Non dac effect on ghrp2 is far longer,than Dac,upto 90%,it increases it like an amp.


Yeah, but if GH kills it then it is irrelevant


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

goonerton said:


> yeh i'm just wondering (if that pubmed study is to believed) is it a waste using a GHRP/GHRH combo if there is any exogenous GH still in your system...


how long doess 2iu stay in system?


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> yeh i'm just wondering (if that pubmed study is to believed) is it a waste using a GHRP/GHRH combo if there is any exogenous GH still in your system...[/
> 
> Imo yes,need to wait.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

biglbs said:


> It may only be a slight change to profile,but can be a big change to effect,hence all variations mate.


Yeh but this study just says GHRH effects are abolished with GH etc, so i would imagine that would apply to all forms of GHRH


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Tassotti said:


> how long doess 2iu stay in system?


not too sure exactly, but i'm sure its a matter of hours.


----------



## Conscript (Sep 5, 2010)

biglbs said:


> I still think sat dose then 20-30 mins but hay?


I'm not certain which is the best way, but I bet there's not a lot in it either way, I think eating is the biggest blunter around ghrp/ghrh shots, more so than hgh timing, but who knows,someone tomorrow may topple everything we all swear by...


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Tassotti said:


> Yeah, but if GH kills it then it is irrelevant


It would be if doses are too close,Hence and again i use only every 8 hrs(3x max)with peps/gh together.I normaly use Gh am /pm and then peps AM /PM and often mid day.I have now studdies lots of info from others,here and elsewhere,it is my choice from that.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Conscript said:


> I'm not certain which is the best way, but I bet there's not a lot in it either way, I think eating is the biggest blunter around ghrp/ghrh shots, more so than hgh timing, but who knows,someone tomorrow may topple everything we all swear by...


What you gotta look at is messages within,if you are still pulsing,then wallop 2iu of synth gh,your body will say oooooooooooooo job done,(especialy as you are releasing extra natty)You will not release any more natty,you see buddy?


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

Conscript said:


> I'm not certain which is the best way, but I bet there's not a lot in it either way, I think eating is the biggest blunter around ghrp/ghrh shots, more so than hgh timing, but who knows,someone tomorrow may topple everything we all swear by...


This is soooo true.

It is all still research and we are all lab rats


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Conscript said:


> I'm not certain which is the best way, but I bet there's not a lot in it either way, I think eating is the biggest blunter around ghrp/ghrh shots, more so than hgh timing, but who knows,someone tomorrow may topple everything we all swear by...


Well this statement from the pubmed study does sound quite unequivocal " *which are known to almost abolish the effect of GHRH*"

Doesn't seem to be too much uncertainty there and pubmed is generally regarded as an authoritative and reliable source of info.

So if correct timing really would be of great importance, wouldn't want to be taking peps anywhere near same time as GH or otherwise may as well just GHRP on its own.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> not too sure exactly, but i'm sure its a matter of hours.


Only half life of 2-3 hours normaly.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

All GHRH peptides where originally GRF 1-29 and have been altered slightly to have different life spans in the body (CJC1293=5min, CJC1295 w DAC several days, CJC1295 w/o DAC 30min) so non are stronger or weaker just the life is different.

I have not read the study but from what you are saying that is not an issue as by the time you have jabbed your synthetic GH (10-15min) after the peptides they will have done what they where supposed to do, the GHRH will have amplified the GH pulse so although it could effect the GHRH peptide by the time you jab the GH the peptide would of done its thing so no issue. This would be a problem if you jabbed at the same time as your peptides....


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Anyways who really knows eh?

would be interested to see the studies though that led to it being deemed ok/good to take peps around gh....now that i have seen this study stating that exo GH "almost abolishes" effects of GHRH...

Maybe someone will pop something up from pubmed or similar that contradicts this...


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> All GHRH peptides where originally GRF 1-29 and have been altered slightly to have different life spans in the body (CJC1293=5min, CJC1295 w DAC several days, CJC1295 w/o DAC 30min) so non are stronger or weaker just the life is different.
> 
> I have not read the study but from what you are saying that is not an issue as by the time you have jabbed your synthetic GH (10-15min) after the peptides they will have done what they where supposed to do, the GHRH will have amplified the GH pulse so although it could effect the GHRH peptide by the time you jab the GH the peptide would of done its thing so no issue. This would be a problem if you jabbed at the same time as your peptides....


Not sure about that, according to the chart from Dats showing peak GH serum levels after using peps, the peak looks like it occurs around the post 30min mark and that was with IV admin apparently? so with sub Q or IM I would imagine peak GH levels would happen considerably later. And if the study i have found is correct the GH would lessen the effect of GHRH to the point of nearly abolishing it...


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> Not sure about that, according to the chart from Dats showing peak GH serum levels after using peps, the peak looks like it occurs around the post 30min mark and that was with IV admin apparently? so with sub Q or IM I would imagine peak GH levels would happen considerably later. And if the study i have found is correct the GH would lessen the effect of GHRH to the point of nearly abolishing it...


From my studies 30 min is spot on,listening to Paul/reading dac/other university studies etc


----------



## Conscript (Sep 5, 2010)

biglbs said:


> What you gotta look at is messages within,if you are still pulsing,then wallop 2iu of synth gh,your body will say oooooooooooooo job done,(especialy as you are releasing extra natty)You will not release any more natty,you see buddy?


I've just read a few posts on Dats where he is advising to take ghrp followed by hgh 10 mins later mulitple times daily...thread called "Adding synthetic GH to my Ipamorelin/CJC combo"..he even has a small graph showing 2 overlapping pyramid pulses, which finish their own cycles. And even though that's a porr example you can;t bet that he post came from well refereenced findings mate (Can't find better atm)

And Googerton - I just read this thread "HGH with Mod GRF(1-29) & GHRP-2?" Dat doesn't seem very phased by mising these 15 mins apart, mayeb you should start a thread on his site and link the pubmed, and see what he says, maybe something missing or wrong in the assumption, tbf it's a but vague.


----------



## Conscript (Sep 5, 2010)

Tassotti said:


> This is soooo true.
> 
> It is all still research and we are all lab rats


just spotted your thread on dats, well in mate, can't wait to se what he thinks about the pubmed, oh and good luck with your shoulder mate


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

Conscript said:


> just spotted your thread on dats, well in mate, can't wait to se what he thinks about the pubmed, oh and good luck with your shoulder mate


cheers..thought it's easier just to ask Dat directly. See what he thinks


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Conscript said:


> I'm too drunk to debate this, but I've just read a few posts on Dats where he is advising to take ghrp followed by hgh 10 mins later mulitple times daily...thread called "Adding synthetic GH to my Ipamorelin/CJC combo"..he even has a small graph showing 2 overlapping pyramid pulses, which finish their own cycles. And even though that's a porr example you can;t bet that he post came from well refereenced findings mate
> 
> And Googerton - I just read this thread "HGH with Mod GRF(1-29) & GHRP-2?" Dat doesn't seem very phased by mising these 15 mins apart, mayeb you should start a thread on his site and link the pubmed, and see what he says, maybe something missing or wrong in the assumption, tbf it's a but vague.


The thing is I know Dat is probably the most knowledgeable person around on peps, i have read very limited of his stuff, but the snippets i've seen a lot of it looks to be his own projections, estimates and theories...very clever stuff none the less but i don't think all of it can be spouted as 100% fact.

Its like where he says peps can be equal to 15iu of GH per day, I doubt he has simply read a pubmed study which stated that, he has probably read several studies some probably relating to rats ets, then come up with his own projections/estimates to reach this figure...Far more knowledgeable guy than i will ever be but from the bits i've seen a lot of what he writes can't be passed off as fact.

And from what I have heard he does tend to change his mind on certain things, again nothing wrong with that as peoples ideas/theories evolve but another reason not to just go around blindly claiming everything he writes is fact.

I'm not too bothered about starting any thread on his site, I'm not even really that interested in taking peps at this stage i don't think, but after reading the pubmed study i linked here, if i were to i wouldn't use GHRH around GH.

If one of you guys wants to post up the link to study i linked here on dats forum thats cool, maybe he has seen it before and he has an explanation and something has been missed or is wrong in the assumption as you....would be interested to hear what he says....just can't be bothered to sign up on his site tbh lol.

Personally the bit of the study i highlighted while not going into very much depth did not sound very vague in its claim to me.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Tassotti said:


> cheers..thought it's easier just to ask Dat directly. See what he thinks


Good one will be interesting to see what he says.


----------



## Conscript (Sep 5, 2010)

Tassotti said:


> cheers..thought it's easier just to ask Dat directly. See what he thinks


I'm sure there is merit in these concerns, but that's probably why gurus like Dat suggest waiting 10-15 mins between ghrp/h and hgh...Or maybe we're just his lab monkeys without the cages! :laugh:!


----------



## Conscript (Sep 5, 2010)

@goonerfton - yes you'er right mate noone is infallible, but somone like aus or dat will have a better and fuller understanding of the bigger picture and are in a better position to make assertions than poepl like myself :laugh:

And of course everyone changes their minds as they move forwaredd their understanding, out with the old and in with the new, i'm always willinging to learn the latest theory! 

By vague I mean there is just "gh abolishes ghrh"......doesn't expand on that statement/ give any sort of figures etc, and give me a clear picture of what is happening inside our bodies, which I would have liked to have read tbh...


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

Conscript Lab Rat


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

Tass Lab Rat


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Conscript said:


> @goonerfton - yes you'er right mate noone is infallible, but somone like aus or dat will have a better and fuller understanding of the bigger picture and are in a better position to make assertions than poepl like myself :laugh:


Yes and myself included!

But i will still take the word of a pubmed study over the word of anyone on the internet. I'm not very up on science at all tbh, but i think i am aware that to have something published in pubmed it must pass quite stringent examination....how much of what is passed around on internet would stand up to such examination, no matter how clever/knowledgeable the person is it is coming from.

Anyways will wait and see Dats response before jump to any conclusions.


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

Big Lbs Lab Rat


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

I'll stop now


----------



## Conscript (Sep 5, 2010)

goonerton said:


> Yes and myself included!
> 
> But i will still take the word of a pubmed study over the word of anyone on the internet. I'm not very up on science at all tbh, but i think i am aware that to have something published in pubmed it must pass quite stringent examination....how much of what is passed around on internet would stand up to such examination, no matter how clever/knowledgeable the person is it is coming from.
> 
> Anyways will wait and see Dats response before jump to any conclusions.


Fairy nuff, I'm such a cynical basterd though I honestly believe offical channels like pubmeds give the truth, nothing but the truth, but maybe not the whole truth...:laugh:...that's where guys like dat and aus step in and crank it up all the way... :beer:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> Not sure about that, according to the chart from Dats showing peak GH serum levels after using peps, the peak looks like it occurs around the post 30min mark and that was with IV admin apparently? so with sub Q or IM I would imagine peak GH levels would happen considerably later. And if the study i have found is correct the GH would lessen the effect of GHRH to the point of nearly abolishing it...


I understand what you mean but you are looking at the effect of the peptide use this (again apologise I am in a hotel with limited Internet access) graph shows you but the study shows (I believe) that if you have it in your system at the time of injecting GHRH then it will negatively effect it. Does that make sense?


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> I understand what you mean but you are looking at the effect of the peptide use this (again apologise I am in a hotel with limited Internet access) graph shows you but the study shows (I believe) that if you have it in your system at the time of injecting GHRH then it will negatively effect it. Does that make sense?


Yeh i think i understand what you're getting at, but logically don't think looking at the study and dats graph that you could conclude that the GHRH would have definitely already 'worked' by the time you have injected the GH(10-15 mins after), I suppose it could be a possibility but as the chart is for IV and most peole are injecting IM or sub Q, for one the peak is going to be later than 30mins and as the total pulse lasts for some time who knows how much of a negative effect the GH admin will have on the action of the GHRH.

And then if you are using a protocol like peps/GH 3 times a day, would you be sure on the 2nd and 3rd admin, that the earlier GH would have completely cleared your system by then?

To me if it is "known" that rHGH abolishes the effect of GHRH it would just make sense not to use them anywhere where there is any possibility of an overlap.

But who knows, maybe DAT has an explanation that makes sense of it.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> Yeh i think i understand what you're getting at, but logically don't think looking at the study and dats graph that you could conclude that the GHRH would have definitely already 'worked' by the time you have injected the GH(10-15 mins after), I suppose it could be a possibility but as the chart is for IV and most peole are injecting IM or sub Q, for one the peak is going to be later than 30mins and as the total pulse lasts for some time who knows how much of a negative effect the GH admin will have on the action of the GHRH.
> 
> And then if you are using a protocol like peps/GH 3 times a day, would you be sure on the 2nd and 3rd admin, that the earlier GH would have completely cleared your system by then?
> 
> ...


We have to remember that these are research peps.That implies that new info. will keep becoming available,i believe we must look at all studies with an open mind and see what fits where?

The active half life is 2-3 hrs for Gh,so if your doing a combo of Gh/Peps 8 hrs or so after the last there exists no cross over,can anyone see an issue there?

I also believe you ' feel 'peps workin so will have a good idea when release is complete,for me i leave it 20-30 mins depending on when i 'feel' the release start.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

biglbs said:


> We have to remember that these are research peps.That implies that new info. will keep becoming available,i believe we must look at all studies with an open mind and see what fits where?
> 
> * The active half life is 2-3 hrs for Gh,so if your doing a combo of Gh/Peps 8 hrs or so after the last there exists no cross over,can anyone see an issue there*?
> 
> I also believe you ' feel 'peps workin so will have a good idea when release is complete,for me i leave it 20-30 mins depending on when i 'feel' the release start.


Not sure that is the case , look at this link, post #3, it is a graph from merck the makers of saizen, it plots the real life serum levels after admin of their GH . Serum levels start to rise immediately after injection and doesn't clear your system till well after the 12 hr mark

http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/professional-muscle-forum/84068-facts-fiction-hgh-self-testing-methods-igf-hgh-serum.html


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> Not sure that is the case , look at this link, post #3, it is a graph from merck the makers of saizen, it plots the real life serum levels after admin of their GH . Serum levels start to rise immediately after injection and doesn't clear your system till well after the 12 hr mark
> 
> http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/professional-muscle-forum/84068-facts-fiction-hgh-self-testing-methods-igf-hgh-serum.html


So can we then presume that only one jab of each every 12 hours is more effective?mmmmm


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Conscript said:


> @goonerfton - yes you'er right mate noone is infallible, but somone like aus or dat will have a better and fuller understanding of the bigger picture and are in a better position to make assertions than poepl like myself :laugh:
> 
> And of course everyone changes their minds as they move forwaredd their understanding, out with the old and in with the new, i'm always willinging to learn the latest theory!
> 
> *By vague I mean there is just "gh abolishes ghrh"......doesn't expand on that statement/ give any sort of figures etc, and give me a clear picture of what is happening inside our bodies, which I would have liked to have read tbh...:*)


Missed this edited part you added

Yes I would have liked to have read more but that was all that was available, for free anyway.

But when it is stated that "it is known" that rGH "almost abolishes" the effects of GHRH...Do you really need to see figures as well to think there is good chance that the GHRH is very likely to be a waste used with GH, it is pretty strong language.

While dat may be very knowledgeable about peps amongst the BB internet community, he states himself he is not a professional in the areas he discusses, whereas the three authors of the piece from pubmed are professors of endocrinology and metabolism.

Here is a list of one of the professional appointments of one of the authors Ezio Ghigo

Positions

1987/1992: Assistant Professor in the Division of Endocrinology and

Metabolism, University of Turin

1992/2009: Academic appointments

• Associated Professor in Endocrinology and Metabolism (1992)

• Chair of Metabolic Diseases, Medical School, University of Turin (1992)

• Full Professor of Endocrinology and Metabolism (1999)

• Chairman of Endocrinology and Metabolic Disease, Medical School,

University of Turin (since 2001)

• Clinical Practice as Director of the Division of Endocrinology and

Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Ospedale Molinette,

Turin, Italy (since 2002)

• Chairman of the Postgraduate School in Endocrinology and Metabolism,

University of Turin (since 2002)

• Chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Turin

(2002-2007)

• Member of the Academic Council, University of Turin (since 2004)

• Member of the Science and Research Agency of the University of Turin

(2007)

• Chairman of the Department of Medicine, University Hospital SGBMolinette, Turin (2008)

• Dean, School of Medicine, University of Turin (2010)

• Vice Rector for Health, University of Turin (2010)

I suppose it boils down to which source of information you think is most likely to be reliable.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

biglbs said:


> So can we then presume that only one jab of each every 12 hours is more effective?mmmmm


Don't think i'm qualified to answer that.

But from what i've read so far if i was to run peps/gh together, I would probably run them on alternating days, just to be sure GH was completely out of system when running peps.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> Yeh i think i understand what you're getting at, but logically don't think looking at the study and dats graph that you could conclude that the GHRH would have definitely already 'worked' by the time you have injected the GH(10-15 mins after), I suppose it could be a possibility but as the chart is for IV and most peole are injecting IM or sub Q, for one the peak is going to be later than 30mins and as the total pulse lasts for some time who knows how much of a negative effect the GH admin will have on the action of the GHRH.
> 
> And then if you are using a protocol like peps/GH 3 times a day, would you be sure on the 2nd and 3rd admin, that the earlier GH would have completely cleared your system by then?
> 
> ...


yea i understand but GHRH is not around for long it does its job then gets out of there(not great wording but hope you see my point) just like a GHRP it creates a pulse then the pulse peaks and drops in 2-3hrs but the job it is there for happens at the beginning, so when you inject the GHRH then wait 10-15min the GHRH would have done its job by the time the GH was injected and because this will be out in the 3hrs the next injection of GHRH should not be effected....

does it say in this study they where injected at the same time or with a delay?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

biglbs said:


> So can we then presume that only one jab of each every 12 hours is more effective?mmmmm


with GH it is effective (dont believe more effective) only if you jab EOD as you need to give the body rest from such a high dose(there is a study on the value of EOD/E3D injections of GH at doses higher than 4iu....


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> with GH it is effective (dont believe more effective) only if you jab EOD as you need to give the body rest from such a high dose(there is a study on the value of EOD/E3D injections of GH at doses higher than 4iu....


....Hence why dose is max 2iu or so per peps jab if 2 jabs per day or 1.5iu if by 3,that makes sense,nice one.

I did not spot the size of dose on that graph!


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> yea i understand but GHRH is not around for long it does its job then gets out of there(not great wording but hope you see my point) just like a GHRP it creates a pulse then the pulse peaks and drops in 2-3hrs but the job it is there for happens at the beginning, so when you inject the GHRH then wait 10-15min the GHRH would have done its job by the time the GH was injected and because this will be out in the 3hrs the next injection of GHRH should not be effected....
> 
> does it say in this study they where injected at the same time or with a delay?


well from dats chart GH serum levels peaked at 30 mins, can't remember how long it was till returned to baseline but must have been more than an hour I would have thought, and IM or Sub Q admin is going to slow that all down.

No the study did not make any mention of when the GH needed to be injected to destroy the GHRH effects, so it would just be guessing to try and make any assumption on this.

The thing is even if there is credible data showing that GHRH would be in and out of our system within 15mins(not sure if there is?), we know its effects of amplifying the usual pulse of GHRP last a good while longer that, so whose to say the GH will still not destroy the overall effects of the GHRH as described in the pubmed piece.

And you will still only be left with what you would have got with the GHRP?

Also as I said in last post if you are dosing GH/peps 2/3 times a day , you will almost certainly still have rGH in your system at the time of 2nd and 3rd pep shots.

i have no idea how much the GHRH costs so maybe from a financial point of view its not too important anyway.

edit: as always missed a bit of post.

the GH will not clear your system in 3hrs , have a look at the Merck(saizen) graph i gave link to a few posts ago, it takes what would appear to be around 16hrs to clear your system.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> well from dats chart GH serum levels peaked at 30 mins, can't remember how long it was till returned to baseline but must have been more than an hour I would have thought, and IM or Sub Q admin is going to slow that all down.
> 
> No the study did not make any mention of when the GH needed to be injected to destroy the GHRH effects, so it would just be guessing to try and make any assumption on this.
> 
> ...


It looks as though the time for clearence of Gh is dose related to a high degree,20iu long time/2iu less(a lot less)time,more a less certainly 8hrs or less.Don't forget too that this could be quoting full chemical life,not active half life?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> well from dats chart GH serum levels peaked at 30 mins, can't remember how long it was till returned to baseline but must have been more than an hour I would have thought, and IM or Sub Q admin is going to slow that all down.
> 
> No the study did not make any mention of when the GH needed to be injected to destroy the GHRH effects, so it would just be guessing to try and make any assumption on this.
> 
> ...


my point being the GHRH is in there to do a job that is to amplify the pulse and it does this straight away it does not take 30min to do it so as long as you are not injecting the GH with the GHRH then this should not be an issue, now that you have said the study does not give details of when the Gh is administered than all any of us can do is make assumptions really, as if it is being dosed with the GHRH then i can see the issue, does the study detail (i cannot see it) that synthetic GH only effect GHRH when injected with it? if not then it is safe to say just because it is in your system it wont have a negative effect??

to be fair without knowing the details we are all making big assumptions what needs to be answered is

does GH negative effect GHRH when injected at the same time?

Does synthetic GH in the system effect GHRH if the GH is peaking out?

does the dose of the GH effect this as more injected longer in the system?

i would assume that it effects GHRH at point of injection when injected together but cannot be certain?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

biglbs said:


> It looks as though the time for clearence of Gh is dose related to a high degree,20iu long time/2iu less(a lot less)time,more a less certainly 8hrs or less.Don't forget too that this could be quoting full chemical life,not active half life?


yes and injection method has a influence as well in this study was the GH or GHRH injected IV, IM or SubQ?


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Trying to post study,not good at this though so hay? no sorry Paul will look around a bit


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

biglbs said:


> It looks as though the time for clearence of Gh is dose related to a high degree,20iu long time/2iu less(a lot less)time,more a less certainly 8hrs or less.Don't forget too that this could be quoting full chemical life,not active half life?


The Merck chart was for 4iu (not sure where you get 20iu from?),i am no expert on science, but i think the half life and peak serum level of any drug is going to be the same regardless of the dose, the total time to clear your bloodstream will no doubt be quicker the less you take but if you consider peak serum levels are reached between 3-4 hrs, the GH is not likely to have have cleared your system by the time of your next pep dose if taking 2/3 time a day.

At the end of day if what you are currently doing is working and you happy to believe whoever has directed you to the protocol you are using then just keep doing it i would say.

Just to me after reading the pubmed piece that rGH destroys the effects of GHRH that would be a consideration to me, and unless i saw something conclusive showing that a 15min delay between peps and GH would negate this factor, then i doubt i would follow what seems to be the accepted protocol.

What i do find surprising is that from the reaction to this thread from people who read dats board, it doesn't seem there has ever been any mention of the usual effect GH has on GHRH(could be wrong)...I would have thought this would have at least been touched upon when explaining why the 15 minute delay between peps/GH...but there you go.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

the thing is though there is nothing in that section of the study that says a delay gets round this?? it does say:



> including neurotransmitters, glucose, free fatty acids, gluco corticoids, recombinant human GH and even exogenous somatostatin, which are known to almost abolish the effect of GHRH.


so eating carbs has the same effect? so nothing new as we all ready know that both Carbs and Fats blunt peptide when taken within a certain time span of the peptide.......i am a little hesitant to believe the whole statement until i see the timings that where used to make this conclusion (i believe the study but we are not in possession of all the details) i have asked Dat about this because one of the biggest issues with studies of any type is understanding them and he may have access to the full study??


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> my point being the GHRH is in there to do a job that is to amplify the pulse and it does this straight away it does not take 30min to do it so as long as you are not injecting the GH with the GHRH then this should not be an issue, now that you have said the study does not give details of when the Gh is administered than all any of us can do is make assumptions really, as if it is being dosed with the GHRH then i can see the issue, does the study detail (i cannot see it) that synthetic GH only effect GHRH when injected with it? if not then it is safe to say just because it is in your system it wont have a negative effect??
> 
> to be fair without knowing the details we are all making big assumptions what needs to be answered is
> 
> ...


all the study says is, rGH (amongst other things) are known to almost abolish the effect of GHRH...

No further details

To me the facts at present seem to be, GH destroys the effects of GHRH, whether this doesn't happen if a 15 minute delay is used or not is just a guessing game at this point, remember the statement in the pubmed was GH abolishes the EFFECTS, it didn't say just abolishes the drug, so to me that could well mean even if the drug had even passed your system the EFFECTS could still be destroyed...

as i said is all guessing games apart from the fact GH does destroy GHRH, so to me logically it would be sensible just to keep them far apart, unless you have actually seen the studies that show a 15 min gap will stop the negative impact.

And where are you getting that the GH will clear your system in 3hrs from?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> all the study says is, rGH (amongst other things) are known to almost abolish the effect of GHRH...
> 
> No further details
> 
> ...


i agree it does not clearly state but then it does say the same with Glucose so would you agree eating as far apart from the GHRH is also needed? if this is true?

i meant peak not clear sort of obvious but it is clear i have to double check everything i write these days


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> The Merck chart was for 4iu (not sure where you get 20iu from?),i am no expert on science, but i think the half life and peak serum level of any drug is going to be the same regardless of the dose, the total time to clear your bloodstream will no doubt be quicker the less you take but if you consider peak serum levels are reached between 3-4 hrs, the GH is not likely to have have cleared your system by the time of your next pep dose if taking 2/3 time a day.
> 
> At the end of day if what you are currently doing is working and you happy to believe whoever has directed you to the protocol you are using then just keep doing it i would say.
> 
> ...


20iu was an example of the theory mate,graph copied above now


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> all the study says is, rGH (amongst other things) are known to almost abolish the effect of GHRH...
> 
> No further details
> 
> ...


just a thought was this a human study??


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> The Merck chart was for 4iu (not sure where you get 20iu from?),i am no expert on science, but i think the half life and peak serum level of any drug is going to be the same regardless of the dose, the total time to clear your bloodstream will no doubt be quicker the less you take but if you consider peak serum levels are reached between 3-4 hrs, the GH is not likely to have have cleared your system by the time of your next pep dose if taking 2/3 time a day.
> 
> At the end of day if what you are currently doing is working and you happy to believe whoever has directed you to the protocol you are using then just keep doing it i would say.
> 
> ...


2 per day of peps is 12 hours apart for me and only 2 iu Gh added,no brainer realy,Look at the way the graph falls away.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> the thing is though there is nothing in that section of the study that says a delay gets round this?? it does say:
> 
> so eating carbs has the same effect? so nothing new as we all ready know that both Carbs and Fats blunt peptide when taken within a certain time span of the peptide.......i am a little hesitant to believe the whole statement until i see the timings that where used to make this conclusion (i believe the study but we are not in possession of all the details) i have asked Dat about this because one of the biggest issues with studies of any type is understanding them and he may have access to the full study??


Well it seems like something new because this is not just talking about glucose etc, its saying that rGH basically nullifies the effects of GHRH which from the sounds of it hasn't been discussed on dats board before?

I think its great idea that you or dat should pull the full study and then highlight the part that suggests that the 15 minute gap between peps/GH does in fact negate the usual effect Gh has on GHRH. That would certainly clear things up.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> just a thought was this a human study??


TBH the way the statement read "it is known" seems like it was pretty much widely accepted information of experts in that field rather than being from the findings of just that or any other single studies.

Remember the 3 authors of that piece are all professors of endocrinology, they are not unregulated self styled gurus, i would imagine they have to work within certain professional and ethical guidelines, i doubt they can just start making off the cuff unfounded statements, and that study would no doubt have been peer reviewed, i very much doubt they are going to make a statement of such certainty without the necessary evidence required to support it.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> Just to me after reading the pubmed piece that rGH destroys the effects of GHRH that would be a consideration to me, and unless i saw something conclusive showing that a 15min delay between peps and GH would negate this factor, then i doubt i would follow what seems to be the accepted protocol.
> 
> What i do find surprising is that from the reaction to this thread from people who read dats board, it doesn't seem there has ever been any mention of the usual effect GH has on GHRH(could be wrong)...I would have thought this would have at least been touched upon when explaining why the 15 minute delay between peps/GH...but there you go.


As Paul pointed out,the Peps will have done the job,ie released Gh into blood so why would rGh blunt it then,impossible.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

goonerton said:


> TBH the way the statement read "it is known" seems like it was pretty much widely accepted information of experts in that field rather than being from the findings of just that or any other single studies.
> 
> Remember the 3 authors of that piece are all professors of endocrinology, they are not unregulated self styled gurus, i would imagine they have to work within certain professional and ethical guidelines, i doubt they can just start making off the cuff unfounded statements, and that study would no doubt have been peer reviewed, i very much doubt they are going to make a statement of such certainty without the necessary evidence required to support it.


Why did qualified people not begin to understand Dan Duchaine's early theory's with AAS saying that AAs would not help in BB if they are all so bright,just sayin?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> Well it seems like something new because this is not just talking about glucose etc, its saying that rGH basically nullifies the effects of GHRH which from the sounds of it hasn't been discussed on dats board before?
> 
> I think its great idea that you or dat should pull the full study and then highlight the part that suggests that the 15 minute gap between peps/GH does in fact negate the usual effect Gh has on GHRH. That would certainly clear things up.





goonerton said:


> TBH the way the statement read "it is known" seems like it was pretty much widely accepted information of experts in that field rather than being from the findings of just that or any other single studies.
> 
> Remember the 3 authors of that piece are all professors of endocrinology, they are not unregulated self styled gurus, i would imagine they have to work within certain professional and ethical guidelines, i doubt they can just start making off the cuff unfounded statements, and that study would no doubt have been peer reviewed, i very much doubt they are going to make a statement of such certainty without the necessary evidence required to support it.


i agree that this opens up a can of worms but there is as much to question the snippet as there is to believe it and as you have mentioned we are only guessing to the detail.....i would like to hear your thoughts on the question i asked about carbs seeing as it also says Glucose abolishes the effect of GHRH though?

there are many many studies that can be quoted "its Known" but have only been carried out on non human subjects saying it is known unfortunatly does not say anything......as you are questioning the legitimacy of the delay when taking GH i am questioning the snippet as it says alot but proves nothing without the detail.....as we are all making assumptions on the matter so it is not clear cut.....another question would be the use of the GHRP/GHRH stack before fasted cardio as these as we know release naturally GH and this in turn releases FFA's into the blood stream (this has been proven many times that GH releases FFA's) yet FFA's according to this study abolishes the effects of GHRH but GHRH contributes to the release?? very confusing wouldn't you agree?


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

biglbs said:


> As Paul pointed out,the Peps will have done the job,ie released Gh into blood so why would rGh blunt it then,impossible.


And he knows this for a FACT because he is a professional endocrinologist ? or he has been told this by a professional endocrinologist? lol

Anyways i'm done with this.

i offered some info that i hadn't seen before and doesn't look like many others had, and i thought it was worth consideration.

if others already have the all the answers and can dismiss without exploring further, good for them.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> And he knows this for a FACT because he is a professional endocrinologist ? or he has been told this by a professional endocrinologist? lol
> 
> Anyways i'm done with this.
> 
> ...


no not at all i gave an opinion to what i thought would happen, yes you posted up some infor a snippet on a study but it is not the full picture as you or anyone does not know when the GH, Glucose, FFA's where all entered into the equation was it at the time of the GHRH injection or after? was it a human study? i have asked for your thoughts on the FFA's issue have you no thoughts on that?

why are you done with this? because we don't just believe? this is a forum for debate so debate it, you cannot say this snippet is beyond reproach so therefore open for discussion and interpretation which is what we are doing, i have said if this is true as it effects GHRH no matter the timing this is a huge thing which is why i am doubtful in the detail because something so big would never be over looked......


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> i agree that this opens up a can of worms but there is as much to question the snippet as there is to believe it and as you have mentioned we are only guessing to the detail.....i would like to hear your thoughts on the question i asked about carbs seeing as it also says Glucose abolishes the effect of GHRH though?
> 
> there are many many studies that can be quoted "its Known" but have only been carried out on non human subjects saying it is known unfortunatly does not say anything......as you are questioning the legitimacy of the delay when taking GH i am questioning the snippet as it says alot but proves nothing without the detail.....as we are all making assumptions on the matter so it is not clear cut.....another question would be the use of the GHRP/GHRH stack before fasted cardio as these as we know release naturally GH and this in turn releases FFA's into the blood stream (this has been proven many times that GH releases FFA's) yet FFA's according to this study abolishes the effects of GHRH but GHRH contributes to the release?? very confusing wouldn't you agree?


This is what i'm trying to say, i don't know if a 15 min gap will negate the negative effects of GH on GHRH, it seems a bit of a leap of faith to just assume it will though, without something else credible to go on...

I don't know about glucose/free fatty acids, i have never looked into clearance times for these , maybe they are talking about above normal levels with these as i would have thought you always have a certain of these in your blood(could be completely wrong), but rGH is not something that would usually be found in your blood at any level...

As I said its all guessing games but I am not the one claiming that 15 mins will or won't make a difference, but if it was something i was going to do i would want to look into it closer, to make sure i am giving myself every chance of best results.

And if no more light could be shed on it i would probably err on the side of caution and just keep GHRH and GH apart ....so i am sure i definitely get best effects when using GHRH...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

but you are claiming it will abolish the effect this is what i am saying the 15min time delay maywell be because of this study we dont know because the snippet does not tell us the details, the glucose and FFA's is simple really as they are bundled in with the Abolish GHRH statement as is rGH so does this mean you cannot eat any Carbs within what time frame of the GHRH? i am not saying what is being said is not true i am saying there is not enough details in that small snippet as you might read the study and first line says "if rGH is used within a 15min window of the GHRH injection the effects are abolished" it might not but it could as well.......


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> no not at all i gave an opinion to what i thought would happen, yes you posted up some infor a snippet on a study but it is not the full picture as you or anyone does not know when the GH, Glucose, FFA's where all entered into the equation was it at the time of the GHRH injection or after? was it a human study? i have asked for your thoughts on the FFA's issue have you no thoughts on that?
> 
> why are you done with this? because we don't just believe? this is a forum for debate so debate it, you cannot say this snippet is beyond reproach so therefore open for discussion and interpretation which is what we are doing, i have said if this is true as it effects GHRH no matter the timing this is a huge thing which is why i am doubtful in the detail because something so big would never be over looked......


tbh i just think its going round in circles now, people are trying to argue that a 15 min gap and other such factors are going to stop the neg effects of GH on GHRH

, and i have tried to point that you are just guessing and could very likely be wrong.

I have tried to point out(with the help of the merck graph) that i can't see how the GH from your 1st shot is going to have cleared by your second pep shot.

I don't think there is anything else i can add tbh, and is just pointless keep repeating the same. At the end of the day i don't even take peps lol.

so its up to you guys whether you think its worth considering further into or not.


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

Paul, Dat has replied to your thread.

Seems to be talking about his school days. PMSL

Wonder if you can translate


----------



## Tassotti (Feb 27, 2011)

Full Study

http://www.eje-online.org/content/136/5/445.long


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> but you are claiming it will abolish the effect this is what i am saying the 15min time delay maywell be because of this study we dont know because the snippet does not tell us the details, the glucose and FFA's is simple really as they are bundled in with the Abolish GHRH statement as is rGH so does this mean you cannot eat any Carbs within what time frame of the GHRH? i am not saying what is being said is not true i am saying there is not enough details in that small snippet as you might read the study and first line says "if rGH is used within a 15min window of the GHRH injection the effects are abolished" it might not but it could as well.......


LOL i am not claiming anything , i have just given you a statement from a pubmed study, yes i do tend to believe the statement is likely to be true, but i am not going to guess whether this 15mins theory will be a factor or not.

does seem like wishful thinking a bit though tbh. but if everyone using this protocol is happy that the 15 mins delay will offset the effects then that's all that matters really.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tassotti said:


> Paul, Dat has replied to your thread.
> 
> Seems to be talking about his school days. PMSL
> 
> Wonder if you can translate


yea he does talk in riddles sometimes lol

i just read the whole study and cannot find a dose of GH that abolishes GHRH or timings to say they do at the same time or all the time i did find this



> Even the infusion of exogenous somatostatin, at a dose able to abolish the GHRH-induced GH rise, inhibits but does not abolish the somatotrope responsiveness to
> 
> Hexarelin (61)


i cannot find the dose used so this could be 2iu or 20iu....

What Dat says to my question of does GH abolish the effect of GHRH:



> No... Not really. What it is saying is that you have various teenagers hanging around a street corner and that SOMATOSTATIN is a bad ass and GROWTH HORMONE can be a bad ass but only when his intimidating girlfriend IGF-1 starts mouthing off on his behalf. It happens and when it does everyone is inhibited... No corner street joking around.
> 
> GHRH is the geek. He loves to walk by that corner because the game store where players of Dungeons and Dragons hangout and the book store where he can be intellectually stimulated are nearby. But when he tries to walk by when the bad-assed factors are smoking and joking around he always get picked on.
> 
> ...


Dat in his own unique way is saying that if GHRH is injected with GHRP at a time away from GH then GH will tag along with the pulse but if GHRH is used on its own at the same time as GH it will abolish it......i have read the study and it shows nothing about timing for or against the 15min number what Dat has said makes sense and that is as long as you leave a gap as many do you will be fine....

this also seems to be a paper not a study in its self where it calls and refferences other studies the one i find interesting that is refers to is..



> Conley LK. Teik JA. Deghenghi R, Imbimbo BP, Giustina A,
> 
> Locatelli V et al. Mechanism of action of Hexarelin and GHRP-6:
> 
> ...


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

LOL I just checked on Dat board, seems i was registered....Read his reply to the thread...

FCK ME!!!

Well he certainly cleared that one up then LOLLLLLL!!!


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

I did have a quick look at the study, also found this part:

"The GH response to GHRPs is only blunted by glucose load, glucocorticoids and recombinant human (rh) GH, which probably stimulate hypothalamic somatostatin release"

That doesn't sound great for combined use either tbh.

@pscarb

"Even the infusion of exogenous somatostatin, at a dose able to abolish the GHRH-induced GH rise, inhibits but does not abolish the somatotrope responsiveness to

Hexarelin (61)

*i cannot find the dose used so this could be 2iu or 20iu....*

somatostatin is not GH


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> yea he does talk in riddles sometimes lol
> 
> i just read the whole study and cannot find a dose of GH that abolishes GHRH or timings to say they do at the same time or all the time i did find this
> 
> ...


This is hilarious, so you have a study/paper(whatever it is) written by 3 professors of endocrinology saying two things

1) The GH-releasing activity of GHRPs is synergistic with that of GHRH, is not affected by opioid receptor antagonists, such as naloxone, and is only blunted by inhibitory influences, including neurotransmitters, glucose, free fatty acids, gluco corticoids,* recombinant human GH* and even exogenous somatostatin, *which are known to almost abolish the effect of GHRH*.

2)The GH response to GHRPs is only blunted by glucose load, glucocorticoids and *recombinant human (rh) GH*

So that basically suggests that not only the effects of GHRH but also GHRP are both negatively impacted by rGH, there are no details whatsoever to suggest that a 15 min pause would or would not offset these negative effects in any way.

Yet with nothing else to go on apart from a rambling and extremely cryptic post from someone with no formal qualifications in the relevant field(no disrespect to dat, but that is true), which from the face of it I really don't see how his post even starts to address the issue of whether or not a delay of 15 mins would make any difference to the effect that this paper says rGH has on peps...

Yet you are somehow able to deduce from all of this that this only means that GHRH used on its own that would be negatively affected by rGH??

That really is a leap of faith IMO.

Just seems like someone desperately clutching at straws and not wanting to contemplate that the evidence in the pubmed paper here really does appear to cast quite a bit of doubt over the benefits of taking peps/GH close together.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

I will point out again that these are research peps and open to research ,if however you need hard and fast fact for what you are using then you should not use them,you see next week another scientist/proffesor will come out with a theory or test/study to disprove those studies.

It is the nature of the beast,it seems that 2iu rGH every 12 hours even by your study as quoted would be ok,(as again this is full chemical and not active half life quoted)with peps before it,in my case half an hour before.

However and personaly i use an extra peps half way through day(if it does'nt work it's cheap,so hay)when i remember.

Cannot see why it is 'hilarious'unless it is your way,or the highway!

Paul out of interest how many Pros use peps this way that you know?Is it 'usual practice?'

There was a time when i mixed with them all as you now do,what is their take on this?I think that would also be relevent as these are 'research peps'!

I am thinkin,BB research and tried and tested knowleage is just as usful as 'studies',hence my reference to Dan Duchaine earlier.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> This is hilarious, so you have a study/paper(whatever it is) written by 3 professors of endocrinology saying two things
> 
> 1) The GH-releasing activity of GHRPs is synergistic with that of GHRH, is not affected by opioid receptor antagonists, such as naloxone, and is only blunted by inhibitory influences, including neurotransmitters, glucose, free fatty acids, gluco corticoids,* recombinant human GH* and even exogenous somatostatin, *which are known to almost abolish the effect of GHRH*.
> 
> ...


what i find funny is that although it does not say a delay will stop this from occuring as you have pointed out you have not pointed out where it says it won't? it does say that Glucose etc blunts GH response but we all know this hence why you stay away from carbs and fats for 20-30min after the peptide shot....now i understand that you want to see proof of this 15min delay but on the flip of that coin please show me in this paper or any other that a delay does get around the comment about GH abolishing GHRH, as so far all you have done is repeated yourself but shown nothing to say that the delay gets around this issue, granted i cannot show you that it is needed but i respect the knowledge of Dat more than yours so i will continue to do what i am doing but please do show me where it says that the GH abolishes GHRH no matter the timing and i will of course rethink my approach.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

biglbs said:


> I will point out again that these are research peps and open to research ,if however you need hard and fast fact for what you are using then you should not use them,you see next week another scientist/proffesor will come out with a theory or test/study to disprove those studies.
> 
> It is the nature of the beast,it seems that 2iu rGH every 12 hours even by your study as quoted would be ok,(as again this is full chemical and not active half life quoted)with peps before it,in my case half an hour before.
> 
> ...


i have no idea mate i do know a few Pro's and some do and some dont but as been pointed out this is a new method to follow a GH pulse with a small amount of GH, i have used it and the results where better than just the peptides alone this is all the proof i need to be fair......i believe in what Dat says i have been following his advice and reading his writings for some years now and my physique has improved by using his methods of peptides and i have used alot less gear, as i mentioned above if there is a flaw in the method show it (not you) but the paper makes a conclusion but gives no detail and the devil is in the detail as timings could/should have a real influence on this as what we need to know are 2 things...

can you have a delay between peptides and GH shot to overcome this issue of GH abolishing GHRH?

Is this negative effect with GH on GHRH around all the time?

from what Dat has said it would seem as long as there is a short delay and GHRH is combined with GHRP then GH does not negatively effect GHRH this makes sense plus how do we know this paper looked at the effect GH had on GHRH combined with GHRP which is the way we all use it this is a MASSIVE point to be honest.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> what i find funny is that although it does not say a delay will stop this from occuring as you have pointed out you have not pointed out where it says it won't? it does say that Glucose etc blunts GH response but we all know this hence why you stay away from carbs and fats for 20-30min after the peptide shot....now i understand that you want to see proof of this 15min delay but on the flip of that coin please show me in this paper or any other that a delay does get around the comment about GH abolishing GHRH, as so far all you have done is repeated yourself but shown nothing to say that the delay gets around this issue, granted i cannot show you that it is needed but i respect the knowledge of Dat more than yours so i will continue to do what i am doing but please do show me where it says that the GH abolishes GHRH no matter the timing and i will of course rethink my approach.


LOL I don't have any knowledge re this subject, i never claimed to have, i have just presented you with information from qualified professionals.

I have never said that a 15 minute delay would or would not offset the neg affect rGH has on GHRH and GHRP(according to this paper).

If you think you have seen enough evidence to suggest that a 15min delay offsets the effects described in the paper, and that the evidence presented only points to these effects occurring if GHRH is used on its own...then thats fair enough.

at the end of the day all that really matters is that you do things in the way that you think is best, i'm not trying to convince anyone either way, just putting up some info that i personally think is quite relevant when deciding what protocol to use with pep/gh combined use.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> i have no idea mate i do know a few Pro's and some do and some dont but as been pointed out this is a new method to follow a GH pulse with a small amount of GH, i have used it and the results where better than just the peptides alone this is all the proof i need to be fair......i believe in what Dat says i have been following his advice and reading his writings for some years now and my physique has improved by using his methods of peptides and i have used alot less gear, as i mentioned above if there is a flaw in the method show it (not you) but the paper makes a conclusion but gives no detail and the devil is in the detail as timings could/should have a real influence on this as what we need to know are 2 things...
> 
> can you have a delay between peptides and GH shot to overcome this issue of GH abolishing GHRH?
> 
> ...


Well the fact that the sentence in the paper that ended describing that rGH abolishes the effects of GHRH, started off with "*The GH-releasing activity of GHRPs is synergistic with that of GHRH*

could be a clue...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> Well the fact that the sentence in the paper that ended describing that rGH abolishes the effects of GHRH, started off with "*The GH-releasing activity of GHRPs is synergistic with that of GHRH*
> 
> could be a clue...


not really as it says that GHRP is synergistic with GHRH it says no where that they found GH abolishes GHRH when used with GHRP.....just that GH abolishes the effect of GHRH

the paper is relevant for when guys decide what to do but as i said and i think we are agreeing because it does not go into detail about timing it does not really say one thing or another when it comes to timings??


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> not really as it says that GHRP is synergistic with GHRH it says no where that they found GH abolishes GHRH when used with GHRP.....just that GH abolishes the effect of GHRH
> 
> the paper is relevant for when guys decide what to do but as i said and i think we are agreeing because it does not go into detail about timing it does not really say one thing or another when it comes to timings??


It also states later on in paper that rGH also blunts the effects of GHRP ...so that could be another clue.

Yes i do agree that there is no discussion about timings, thats why i can't see how you come to the conclusion that a 15 mins delay will be OK.

It also doesn't say that if wearing a black hat while injecting the GH this will stop the GH from destroying/blunting your peps...but would you assume that this may be the case?

I know thats not a great analogy, but hopefully you can see the point, IMO without having something else to go on we can't realistically draw any conclusions in regards to timings. so the only way we could be certain the GH wasn't negatively affecting the peps, would be to allow serum levels to normalise before injecting the GH.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

goonerton said:


> It also states later on in paper that rGH also blunts the effects of GHRP ...so that could be another clue.
> 
> *Yes i do agree that there is no discussion about timings, thats why i can't see how you come to the conclusion that a 15 mins delay will be OK.*
> 
> ...


in the same way i dont understand how you can come to the conclusion that it wont be ok......


----------

