exphys88
Registered
well that might make the comparison interesting. I injected 5 iu 3 hours before my test. Do you think hgh serum levels can be compared? With an adjustment for the time difference?
-
🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪 -
🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥
Is Uncle Z's HGH legit?
- Thread starter heavyiron
- Start date
well that might make the comparison interesting. I injected 5 iu 3 hours before my test. Do you think hgh serum levels can be compared? With an adjustment for the time difference?
one week. Here is a graph that was provided for me about the pharmacokinetics of hgh. I was going to compare my results to this study.
The first treatment sequence received a 0.5 mL (2.92 mg) subcutaneous dose of r-hGH (Saizen®, Merck Serono) administered by standard needle and syringe (period 1) followed by administration of the same dose of rhGH using the cool.click??? 2 needle-free injection device (period 2). The second treatment sequence received 0.5 mL (2.92 mg) r-hGH administered by the cool.click??? 2 device (period 1) followed by administration of the same dose of r-hGH using a standard needle and syringe (period 2).
Looks like the dose used in the above graph was over 7.8iu HGH. This may be another factor to consider as the following study shows a 2 hour peak. Either way it seems that HGH may be tested 2-3 hours after administration to capture a snapshot of peak levels.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1982 Nov;55(5):1003-6.
A comparison of subcutaneous and intramuscular administration of human growth hormone in the therapy of growth hormone deficiency.
Russo L, Moore WV.
Abstract
The sc and im administration of human GH (hGH) was compared in the therapy of GH deficiency. The peak and integrated concentrations of hGH in the plasma of the patients were similar after sc and im injection of an initial dose (0.1 U/kg) of hGH. The peak hGH concentration occurred at 2 h in both groups. The posttreatment height velocity and the change in height velocity at 3-month intervals were also similar in the im and sc groups. The somatomedin generation test resulted in a higher mean peak of somatomedin C after sc injection; however, if the individual peaks of somatomedin C were averaged, there was no difference between sc and im injection. A cross-over at 9 months of therapy to determine patient acceptance of im vs. sc injections indicated overwhelming acceptance of the sc route. The antibody responses to hGH were similar in both groups. We conclude that sc injection of hGH is an effective and safe mode of therapy for GH deficiency. The lipoatrophy that occurred infrequently at the injection site can be eliminated by rotation of sites. Subcutaneous administration of hGH will be more acceptable by the patients with less pain and less noncompliance.
PMID:6889608 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
exphys88
Registered
It seems like your hgh serum levels are consistent with the graph considering you injected only 5 iu's and tested at 1.5 hours. Looks like good hgh.
Yes, just found another chart. Looks like 3-4 hours if you click on the full text.
Endocrinologia Japonica: * (1988) ,*
exphys88
Registered
awesome, thanks. It also looks like igf levels are greater with ed injections compared to 2-4 times a day, even when the weekly amount is the same.
exphys88
Registered
Interestingly, their serum levels are significantly higher for a similar dosage to the graph I posted. Maybe it's their age? Their levels had a mean of 42.9 ng/ml. Whereas my graph, the mean was between 15-20.
I haven't checked but sometimes the newer studies use more sensitive measuring as technology improves. I lean towards the newer studies because of this.
exphys88
Registered
I would think that body weight is a factor too. These were kids that were probably small considering they were receiving hgh.
LightBearer
Registered
i remember seeing guys igf-1 tests being in the thousands while on hgh, so im wondering if theiir tests were just wrong or if they were taking it for much longer at higher IU
Maybe they were injecting IGF-1? This is why I had my Growth Hormone levels measured as well. That way I would know if I was injecting HGH. Also I took the test fasted. Carbs can increase IGF-1 levels in many users. Anyway my baseline IGF-1 was 163 ng/ml so this is a nice bump for me.
I'm planning on retesting down the raod at a higher HGH dose and I will wait a little longer after administration to get the draw since I had the draw a bit early.
You said you've only been on it for a month, HGH takes a considerable amount of time to build IGF-1 levels afaik. Just injecting IGF-1 would increase the levels a lot faster.
Grozny
Registered
I wrote an article before about rhGH blood testing unfortunately those blood test results are not reliable.
Recombinant GH injected by some subjects is very similar or even identical to the naturally occurring GH. Therefore to my best knowledge there is no specific test capable of distinguishing between them.
GH stays in circulation for a very short time (minutes to one hour, depends if the injection is intravenal or subcutanous)and is rapidly secreted by kidney. Testing IGF-1 or other compounds that will be indicative for injection of GH are not reliable.
Challenges in the detection of GH abuse
Detection of doping with exogenous GH is a formidable
challenge for several reasons [3]. It is difficult to differentiate
between rhGH and endogenously produced pituitary
GH, because rhGH has an amino acid sequence identical
with that of the native 22-kiloDalton (kDa) isoform of the
hormone. Cadaveric GH contains the full range of GH
isoforms and so is indistinguishable from endogenous GH.
Demonstration of exogenous administration must therefore
rely on detecting levels that are not found in normal
physiology. This in turn creates a further problem, because
GH has a short half-life (<20 min) and is secreted in a
pulsatile manner leading to widely varying circulating GH
concentrations throughout the day. Many physiological
factors regulate GH secretion but in the context of antidoping
it is important to recognise that both exercise and
stress lead to a brisk and marked increase in GH secretion
[67, 68]. Consequently the finding of a high GH concentration
in the post-competition setting may merely reflect
endogenous secretion.
This is well recognised in clinical endocrinology, in
which diagnosis of acromegaly cannot be based on a single
GH measurement. Acromegaly is diagnosed by assessing
the GH response to administration of an oral glucose load
over a two-hour period or by repeated measurement of GH
throughout the day. Although these are effective clinical
tools, they are impractical for anti-doping purposes, for
which repeat sampling is not possible.
Mass spectrometric methods for detecting the abuse of
androgenic anabolic steroids and related substances in urine
are highly sophisticated. These are not feasible for GH
because the urinary clearance of GH is not a constant
function of plasma GH [69]. The rates of glomerular
filtration and tubular re-absorption determine urinary
clearance, and GH re-absorption from the glomerular
filtrate is sensitive to the highly variable ambient protein
concentration in the filtrate [70, 71]. Exercise increases
urinary protein excretion, which inhibits GH re-absorption
and increases urinary GH concentration [72]. Consequently
immunoassays and blood sampling are currently preferred.
In addition to these biological considerations, there are a
number of practical aspects to any doping test. Ideally it
should be inexpensive and have a high volume testing
capacity and robust technical operation with high sensitivity
and specificity in order to avoid making false accusations
[73]. Finally it must also be acceptable to the sporting
community and easy to administer in sporting venues.
Development of a test to detect growth hormone abuse
Two different yet complementary approaches have been
investigated to detect GH abuse; the first, pioneered by
Christian Strasburger and Martin Bidlingmaier in Germany,
is based on the detection of different pituitary GH isoforms
whereas the second utilises the measurement of GHsensitive
markers.
The isoform method
Endogenous pituitary GH occurs in multiple isoforms;
approximately 70% of circulating GH is in the form of a
22-kDa polypeptide whereas 5–10% occurs as a 20-kDa
isoform as a result of mRNA splicing. There are,
furthermore, dimers, oligomers, and acidic, desaminated,
acylated, and fragmented forms of GH [74].
By contrast, rhGH comprises solely the 22-kDa isoform.
When rhGH is administered, endogenous pituitary secretion
is down-regulated through negative feedback, leading to an
increase in the 22-kDa isoform relative to other non-22-kDa
isoforms. The isoform method relies on measurement of
GH isoforms by two immunoassays that use monoclonal
antibodies that bind preferentially to either 22-kDa GH or
pituitary-derived hGH [75–77]. An increased proportion of
22-kDa GH or pituitary-derived hGH is indicative of GH
administration [78].
The proportions of GH isoforms are unaffected by age,
sex, sporting discipline, and pathological states [79, 80], but
exercise causes a transient relative increase of the 22-kDa
isoform, thereby reducing the sensitivity of the test if
samples are taken immediately after competition [81, 82].
Proof-of-concept was first shown for subjects with GH
deficiency receiving rhGH replacement; for these patients
the ratio of 22-kDa to pituitary GH was greater than unity
whereas for samples from healthy control adults the ratio
was less than unity [78]. Subsequently the effect of rhGH
administration on the isoform profile was studied in an
open-label cross-over study involving 10 healthy trained
men and 10 women who received a single bolus injection
of rhGH (0.033 mg kg−1 sc, 0.033 mg kg−1 im, and
0.083 mg kg−1 sc) on three separate occasions [83]. Peak
GH concentration and area under the curve were higher in
men and after intramuscular injection. The 20-kDa GH
isoform was suppressed for 14–18 h and 30 h in women
receiving low-dose and high-dose rhGH, respectively,
whereas in men the 20-kDa GH was undetectable at
baseline and throughout the study.
The WADA International Standard for Laboratories
requires confirmation of any adverse analytical finding.
For immunoassays, this means using a second set of
immunoassays using antibodies that recognize different
epitopes [84]. To comply with this, before the 2004 Athens
Olympic Games, two pairs of 22-kDa and pituitary GH
assays were developed in-house by Strasburger and
Bidlingmaier. The initial versions incorporated researchgrade
capture antibodies immobilized on the solid-phase
surface of a micro-titre plate, a biotinylated detection
antibody, and a streptavidin–europium conjugate, which
generated a signal that could be read using a fluorimeter
[85].
The assays were validated in Munich before being
introduced in WADA-accredited laboratories in Sydney,
London, and Athens. An external quality assessment
scheme (EQAS) was established, and showed good
consistency in the reporting of both negative and suspicious
samples; importantly there were no false positives. The
results were reviewed at a WADA-sponsored workshop in
Dallas in April 2004 and the assays were approved for use
at the Athens Olympic Games. These assays were subsequently
used at the winter Olympic Games in Turin and the
Commonwealth Games in Melbourne in 2006 [85].
It was recognized early in development of the assay that
to maintain stability and reliability the kits should be
produced under controlled manufacturing conditions and, in
2006, WADA entered an agreement with SphingoTec,
Berlin, Germany, to adapt the assays to a new technical
platform (tube-based chemiluminescence technique) that
would be suitable for the production of commercial kits
[75].
This new platform uses capture antibodies that are precoated
on the surface of assay tubes, and detection
antibodies directly labelled with acridinium ester, a chemical
that gives a luminescent signal when excited at a
specific energy in the reading instrument (luminometer).
This development significantly improved detection sensitivity
and kit stability and reduced both intra-assay and
inter-assay CVs.
After testing over 1000 samples, the first adverse
analytical finding came in February 2010 when the British
rugby league player, Terry Newton, tested positive [21].
Further adverse findings have followed, but so far none has
been challenged in the Court for Arbitration in Sport.
The main disadvantage of the isoform method is its short
window of detection [83]. Recombinant hGH, even when
injected subcutaneously, is cleared rapidly and GH is
frequently undetectable in a blood sample taken the
morning after an injection [86]. [87].
Consequently, any athlete who ceases GH
use several days before a competition GH will not be
suspected. It is, therefore, likely that the isoform method
will not catch a cheat in the classical “post-competition”
dope-testing scenario and the optimum use of this method
is likely to be in unannounced “out of competition” testing,
as happened in the case of Terry Newton. Another
disadvantage of this method is that it will not detect the
use of cadaveric GH or GH secretagogues, because these do
not alter the isoform profile.
An Australian–Japanese consortium has taken a slightly
different approach and has developed assays that specifically
measure either 22-kDa or 20-kDa GH [88]. A pilot
study showed that after daily administration of 0.1 IU kg−1
(0.033 gkg−1)day−1 of 22-kDa-GH for 17 days there was a
increase in serum 22-kDa-GH concentration which reached
a peak value 3 h after the injection and returned to baseline
by the next day. By contrast, serum 20-kDa decreased
before returning to the initial level after 24 h. The ratio of
22-kDa GH to 20-kDa GH increased markedly after
administration of GH but had returned to baseline within
24 h in each of three subjects studied [79].
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not really trying to detect doping of exogenous GH.
My labs where taken to show that once the blue tops were injected my GH levels and IGF-1 levels rose. I understand this is a semi-crude method however GH levels can be measured and will rise for several hours when administering GH. Anyway I think you are posting more about the elimination half-life of rhGH and how to detect it, where I am looking at plasma levels of GH.
Anyway, I'm happy to report my GH and IGF-1 levels are above the reference range. I'm thinking of doing follow up labs at a higher dose and waiting a bit longer after administration. Should be interesting to see if I can get my GH plasma levels even higher.
My labs where taken to show that once the blue tops were injected my GH levels and IGF-1 levels rose. I understand this is a semi-crude method however GH levels can be measured and will rise for several hours when administering GH. Anyway I think you are posting more about the elimination half-life of rhGH and how to detect it, where I am looking at plasma levels of GH.
Anyway, I'm happy to report my GH and IGF-1 levels are above the reference range. I'm thinking of doing follow up labs at a higher dose and waiting a bit longer after administration. Should be interesting to see if I can get my GH plasma levels even higher.
OldSchoolLifter
Banned Member
Grozny
Registered
Testing IGF-1 or other compounds that will be indicative for injection of GH are not reliable at all . After GH administration there was no difference in peak IGF-I or P-IIINP or in the maximum change in IGF-I or P-III-NP.
exphys88
Registered
This is why he also tested serum hgh levels.
I also had Human Growth Hormone levels tested which were well above the reference range. The blue tops raised my Growth Hormone levels.
Also, IGF-1 testing is commonly used alongside HGH testing as IGF-1 WILL rise with GH administration over a period of time. Usually follow up HGH and IGF-1 labs are done after 1-3 months of Growth Hormone administration.
J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2003 May;16 Suppl 3:631-5.
Confirming the diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) and transitioning the care of patients with childhood-onset GHD.
Hintz RL.
Source
Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. hintz@stanford.edu
Abstract
Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) diagnosed in childhood may persist into adult life. After attainment of final height, retesting of the patient's growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor (GH-IGF) axis using the adult GHD diagnostic criteria should be performed after an appropriate interval of 1-3 months off GH therapy. At the time of retesting, other pituitary hormones and serum IGF-I levels should also be measured. The opportunity should be taken to assess body composition, bone mineral density, and fasting lipid and insulin levels. Patients with severe, long-standing, multiple pituitary hormone deficiency, genetic defects, or severe organic GHD can be excluded from GH retesting. When the diagnosis of adult GHD is established, continuation of GH therapy can be recommended unless there is a known risk of diabetes mellitus or malignancy. The patient's transition to GH replacement in adulthood should be arranged as a close collaboration between the pediatric and adult endocrinologists, who should discuss the reinitiation of treatment with the patient.
PMID:12795365 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
LightBearer
Registered
sure thats entirely possible. igf in high doses would also cause weight loss due to dropping blood sugar
id really like to see the blood test of a person on a name brand hgh so we could have an idea on how much hgh should raise igf
There are a ton of variables so not sure it would be apples to apples without a controlled setting.
exphys88
Registered
Calves of Steel
Registered
Grozny
Registered
Human GH is secreted in spikes and not continuously. Therefore a single measurement is meaningless. The accurate procedure in the clinic is taking samples every 20 min for 16-24 h. Therefore the value in your report even if it is a bit about the average says nothing. Variations in IGF-1 among different people and under different conditions are quite big there the elevation if IGF-1 level in you report also is not indicative of taking external hGH.
In conclusion so far we have no test for determining injected external hGH.
Some (but not all)recombinant hGH may have an additional amino acid at the end but even in that case there is no reliable test to distinguish between that and endogenous hGH.
If u really want to analyse Uncle Z blue tops I have a laboratory who can do it, then we can see a purity and dosage; let me know if u are interested. (its little bit pricey)
Last edited:
Grozny
Registered
exphys88
Registered
Are you purposefully skipping over the serum hgh level of 6.5 w a reference of 0-2.9?
I injected some bunk hgh and my serum hgh was .1
Grozny
Registered
As u can read as above regarding rhGH a single measurement is meaningless,the accurate procedure in the clinic is taking samples every 20 min for 16-24.
If uncle z is ready to pay for the lab test I can analyse those blue tops according PhEur standard.
Then determine content and related substances. I need about 1-2 g product.