# iv gh use



## chem1436114520 (Oct 10, 2006)

i started to use this method of gh use and it blew me mind in 3 wks i went from 97kgs to


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

to? come on!!! the suspense is killing me!!! lol


----------



## Mikazagreat (Apr 10, 2009)

u serious ?


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2009)

It blew his mind so he does not even know what he weighs now!


----------



## Slindog (Oct 6, 2009)

you have a drip by your bed and tv......


----------



## Slindog (Oct 6, 2009)

i've def noticed a difference using gh IM over sub q though


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

chem said:


> i started to use this method of gh use and it blew me mind in 3 wks i went from 97kgs to


i have to point out that Chem is an advanced bodybuilder 99% of GH users should stick with either Sub-q or IM


----------



## Mikazagreat (Apr 10, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> i have to point out that Chem is an advanced bodybuilder 99% of GH users should stick with either Sub-q or IM


I have read it i am sure several times, that SC is more prefered than IM ?!

including the paper with the HGH itself.

about IV injection, if u split dose that's pain in the ass, your arm will look like drug addict i suppose.


----------



## Cheese (Jul 7, 2009)

I'd feel to much like a smack head.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Mikazagreat said:


> I have read it i am sure several times, that SC is more prefered than IM ?!
> 
> including the paper with the HGH itself.
> 
> about IV injection, if u split dose that's pain in the ass, your arm will look like drug addict i suppose.


yes but originally GH was given IM then it was found that the results did not vary that much(must remember this was initially used for dwarfism in children) so Sub-q was suggested and used.....there is a difference between the 2 the GH is faster with IM and you get a slightly fuller look imo.....


----------



## glanzav (Sep 11, 2008)

wat bloody happend then doing it iv


----------



## stevo99 (Nov 28, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> yes but originally GH was given IM then it was found that the results did not vary that much(must remember this was initially used for dwarfism in children) so Sub-q was suggested and used.....there is a difference between the 2 the GH is faster with IM and you get a slightly fuller look imo.....


fuller as in smoother?? i.e water retention?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

well considering your muscle is 70% water then yes fuller through water retention but not smoother....being smooth is alot different than being full well it is for me...


----------



## Mikazagreat (Apr 10, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> well considering your muscle is 70% water then yes fuller through water retention but not smoother....being smooth is alot different than being full well it is for me...


And how about IV, have u tried it ? also on another forum a guy did post a research i am not sure where he got it from about s.c,im,iv injection of HGH and all was almost same, would be nice to know from ppl who tried it themself.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

never tried IV probably never will....i have seen a chart with uptake times and IV is much much quicker than IM and SQ...seeing as it goes straight into the blood i can understand that


----------



## Mikazagreat (Apr 10, 2009)

*Copied form another forum.*

The current mode of growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy is daily subcutaneous (s.c.) injections given in the evening. This schedule is unable to mimic the endogenous pulsatile pattern of GH secretion, which might be of importance for the induction of growth and other GH actions. The present study was conducted in order to study the pharmacokinetics of different doses of GH following intranasal (i.n.) administration and the biological activity of GH after i.n. administration as compared with sc and intravenous (i.v.) delivery. Sixteen GH-deficient patients were studied on five different occasions. On three occasions GH was administered intranasally in doses of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.20 IU/kg, using didecanoyl-L-alpha-phosphatidylcholine as an enhancer. On the other two occasions the patients received an sc injection (0.10 IU/kg) and an i.v. injection (0.015 IU/kg) of GH, respectively. The nasal doses and the sc injection were given in random order in a crossover design. In a double-blinded manner the subjects received the three nasal doses as one puff in each nostril. The patients received no GH treatment between the five studies or during the last week before the start of each study. Intravenous administration produced a short-lived serum GH peak value of 128.12 +/- 6.71 micrograms/l. Peak levels were 13.98 +/- 1.63 micrograms/l after s.c. injection and 3.26 +/- 0.38, 7.07 +/- 0.80 and 8.37 +/- 1.31 micrograms/l, respectively, after the three nasal doses. The peak values of the 0.05 and the 0.20 IU/kg nasal doses were significantly different (p = 0.007). The mean levels obtained by the low nasal dose were significantly lower than those obtained with the medium (p < 0.001) and the high dose (p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the medium and the high doses. The absolute bioavailability of GH following s.c. relative to i.v. administration was 49.5%. The bioavailabilities of the nasal doses were: 7.8% (0.05 IU). 8.9% (0.10 IU) and 3.8% (0.20 IU). Serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) levels increased significantly after s.c. administration only. Mean levels were significantly higher after s.c. administration as compared with the i.v. and all three nasal does (p < 0.001). Serum IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) levels remained unchanged on all five occasions. Mean serum IGFBP-I levels were significantly lower after s.c. GH injection than after administration of the i.v. (p < 0.001) and the three nasal doses (p < 0.005). Subcutaneous GH administration resulted in significantly higher levels of serum insulin and blood glucose (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the bioavailability of nasal GH was low (3.8-8.9%). An i.v. bolus injection of, on average, 1 IU of GH induced no metabolic response. Only s.c. GH administration induced increased levels of IGF-I, insulin and glucose. These data reveal that a closer imitation of the physiological GH pulses than achieved by s.c. GH administration is of limited importance for the induction of a metabolic response to GH.


----------



## stow (Jun 5, 2007)

Think it should be pointed out that injecting iv is significantly more risky that either sc or im.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

that is nice but i know guys who are experianced with IV, IM and SC injections and all swear IVand IM are better than SC be that a small way maybe i certainly prefer IM over SC.....i did once have a chart on the uptake time i will see if i can dig it out....what methods for injecting GH have you tried Mike?



Mikazagreat said:


> *Copied form another forum.*
> 
> The current mode of growth hormone (GH) replacement therapy is daily subcutaneous (s.c.) injections given in the evening. This schedule is unable to mimic the endogenous pulsatile pattern of GH secretion, which might be of importance for the induction of growth and other GH actions. The present study was conducted in order to study the pharmacokinetics of different doses of GH following intranasal (i.n.) administration and the biological activity of GH after i.n. administration as compared with sc and intravenous (i.v.) delivery. Sixteen GH-deficient patients were studied on five different occasions. On three occasions GH was administered intranasally in doses of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.20 IU/kg, using didecanoyl-L-alpha-phosphatidylcholine as an enhancer. On the other two occasions the patients received an sc injection (0.10 IU/kg) and an i.v. injection (0.015 IU/kg) of GH, respectively. The nasal doses and the sc injection were given in random order in a crossover design. In a double-blinded manner the subjects received the three nasal doses as one puff in each nostril. The patients received no GH treatment between the five studies or during the last week before the start of each study. Intravenous administration produced a short-lived serum GH peak value of 128.12 +/- 6.71 micrograms/l. Peak levels were 13.98 +/- 1.63 micrograms/l after s.c. injection and 3.26 +/- 0.38, 7.07 +/- 0.80 and 8.37 +/- 1.31 micrograms/l, respectively, after the three nasal doses. The peak values of the 0.05 and the 0.20 IU/kg nasal doses were significantly different (p = 0.007). The mean levels obtained by the low nasal dose were significantly lower than those obtained with the medium (p < 0.001) and the high dose (p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the medium and the high doses. The absolute bioavailability of GH following s.c. relative to i.v. administration was 49.5%. The bioavailabilities of the nasal doses were: 7.8% (0.05 IU). 8.9% (0.10 IU) and 3.8% (0.20 IU). Serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) levels increased significantly after s.c. administration only. Mean levels were significantly higher after s.c. administration as compared with the i.v. and all three nasal does (p < 0.001). Serum IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) levels remained unchanged on all five occasions. Mean serum IGFBP-I levels were significantly lower after s.c. GH injection than after administration of the i.v. (p < 0.001) and the three nasal doses (p < 0.005). Subcutaneous GH administration resulted in significantly higher levels of serum insulin and blood glucose (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the bioavailability of nasal GH was low (3.8-8.9%). An i.v. bolus injection of, on average, 1 IU of GH induced no metabolic response. Only s.c. GH administration induced increased levels of IGF-I, insulin and glucose. These data reveal that a closer imitation of the physiological GH pulses than achieved by s.c. GH administration is of limited importance for the induction of a metabolic response to GH.


----------



## Testoholic (Jun 13, 2009)

id feel physically sick doing gh IV, if and when i do gh ill stick to sub q or IM


----------



## Mikazagreat (Apr 10, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> that is nice but i know guys who are experianced with IV, IM and SC injections and all swear IVand IM are better than SC be that a small way maybe i certainly prefer IM over SC.....i did once have a chart on the uptake time i will see if i can dig it out....what methods for injecting GH have you tried Mike?


I haven't tried anything but SC, i haven't used HGH for that long to be able to judge which method are good and which are bad, i have started 6 month HGH plan (that's my second time first time i used it for couple of months) 3 weeks ago using SC i wills switch to IM after the next week for the next month and try to notice if any difference.


----------



## stevo99 (Nov 28, 2008)

what benefit would one get injecting im over subq then??

either way doesnt bother me, id go with whichever gave better results


----------



## Mikazagreat (Apr 10, 2009)

stevo99 said:


> what benefit would one get injecting im over subq then??
> 
> either way doesnt bother me, id go with whichever gave better results


IM could still be pain in the ass if u do split dose, with few other short acting anabolics it will be more pain in the ass.


----------



## stevo99 (Nov 28, 2008)

but what advantages would there be?


----------



## Mikazagreat (Apr 10, 2009)

stevo99 said:


> but what advantages would there be?


 Read the thread mate.


----------



## bkoz (Apr 29, 2008)

I asked about i.v on pm and it got taken of the forum...I asked because i know a heroin addict on gh,aas and is one big mother.He does,nt do gh i.v.He eats well works and is a decent guy.just cant kick the habit..


----------



## Slindog (Oct 6, 2009)

I feel IM is the way to go for a few specific reasons.

1. IM injections do stimulate a localized effect, not from the GH but the subtle inflamation brought on by the needle.

I think, for an injured muscle, it can speed up the healing process by promoting inflamation to the injured site


----------



## ymir (Jun 4, 2007)

how hard can it be to shoot iv?

make a fist pop the needle into a vein and inject.

altho it would make my cost on needles and syringes surpass the cost of using hgh haha.

I only do 2iu/d s.c


----------



## Mac (Jun 25, 2004)

I tried it it IV a few times, but mixed it up with sub/q site injections. No real benefit in a couple of shots just felf dirty,


----------



## SS29 (Nov 20, 2008)

With IV, the bioavailability will be better and it will act more like a pulse with the GH being obviously "used" faster, but what is better...having a higher bioavailability though IV and a short burst of GH or a longer half life through SQ or IM?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

WOW guess i have been wasting my money Scott....what about Celltech??


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

it is a valid opinion mate i have said for many years it is the icing on the cake and is used by to many as the magic pill......

i use it off cycle as i feel my physique warrants it and from my results i can certainly justify it for me.....

i do also agree that if you are going to use it then use it with Slin and AAS best to make the most of it than waste your money for an effect that can be acheived with a decent ECA stack.....

IV use well i am still undecided i would agree it is not something i would want to become mainstream and i would only consider it when using a pre-mix pharma product not a powdered chinese brand....


----------



## criticalbench (Apr 3, 2010)

Never tried this, I thought about it since I am a nurse and know how to do IV injections, but I don't feel like damaging my veins  .


----------

