Anabolic steroids, bodybuilding discussion forums. - Steroidology

rui products
 

(Forum for members to discuss the use of anabolic steroids)

View Poll Results: Best gains for muscle size

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • 16wk Test focused stack

    22 53.66%
  • 16wk HGH

    1 2.44%
  • 16wk Both combo of HGH and test focused stack

    18 43.90%
Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Junior Bodybuilder massive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    middlesbrough, england
    Posts
    375
    Rep Power
    11
    Best for size: HGH of TESTOSTERONE?
    I would like your feedback on which method is better for muscle size. For price comparisons I know that test is alot cheaper than HGH. Although on taking test alone and HGH alone, test would be the better in muscle size, whereas the HGH would only put a little muscle on but the fat reductions of it would be far better than the test fat reductions.

    What would be the effects of adding insulin and t3 aswel in regards to muscle building effects?

    Also say cycling with a stack of say test,drol and equipoise for say 16wks, would the addition of HGH and maybe insulin make a bigger impact in muscle size?

  2. #2
    Amatuer MMA Fighter Skinny...In a Big Way's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    536
    Rep Power
    9
    i dont know alot about HGH, but i thought that takes a long time to get u bigger as in overall body growth... test would definitely put on good muscle in a decent amount of time....

    Quote Originally Posted by massive
    Also say cycling with a stack of say test,drol and equipoise for say 16wks, would the addition of HGH and maybe insulin make a bigger impact in muscle size?
    what are ur stats?? and how many cycles have you done?? i would think u would have to do months and months of HGH to get growth... im not quite sure though i dont know a lot about it

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Site Manager
    StoneColdNTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    23,567
    Rep Power
    2000
    Growth Hormone vs. Testosterone: A Retrospective Based on the Latest Research
    by Karlis Ullis, MD with Josh Shackman, MA

    I was one of the first private practitioners in the country to dispense growth hormone as part of an overall anti-program hormone replacement program for adults that fit the criteria of the "Adult Onset Growth Hormone Deficiency Syndrome". Like many other anti-aging physicians, I was extremely impressed by the initial research on growth hormone showing dramatic improvements in body composition, kidney function, skin, mood, well being, etc. I have been a member of the Growth Hormone Research Society for many years and have closely followed all the latest research on growth hormone and other adult hormone replacement therapies. As the number of studies on growth hormone as well as testosterone has piled up since I first began prescribing testosterone, I believe now is the time to look back at the research and see if growth hormone and testosterone have lived up to their promises.

    It is well established in bodybuilding circles that testosterone is superior to growth hormone for gaining muscle. However, growth hormone still is enormously popular and generally has a better reputation than testosterone both in bodybuilding and in anti-aging circles. The general impression is that testosterone will make you big, but at the price of acne, puffiness, temper tantrums, prostate enlargement, and possibly "gyno". Well it is acknowledged that growth hormone is not as anabolic as testosterone, people still think of growth hormone as a hormone that will make you lean and toned with almost no side effects. Growth hormone also has a reputation as being the "fountain of youth" among anti-aging enthusiasts, whereas testosterone is still considered somewhat dangerous. The purpose of this article is to see how the research on testosterone and growth hormone from the last few years has supported or disputed the public’s view of these two hormones.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Which is Better for Body Composition?
    New research has shed some light on the anabolic effects of growth hormone. Several studies in the past have shown an increase in lean body mass in subjects taking growth hormone. However, lean body mass does not necessarily mean muscle, but anything that is not fat and this includes water, organ tissue growth, bone mass, and connective tissue growth. My friend Michael Mooney (author of Built to Survive and editor of the Medibolics Newsletter) has helped publicize the fact that not much, if any, of the lean mass gained while on growth hormone is actually muscle. One recent study on HIV positive test subjects showed no significant change in skeletal muscle mass after taking six milligrams (about 18 units) per day of growth hormone for 12 weeks.(1) Another study, also on HIV positive test subjects, also showed a lack of muscle growth when doses of nine milligrams (roughly 27 units) per day were given.(2) Keep in mind that HIV positive individuals are often suffering from muscle wasting conditions, which should make them more responsive to any possible anabolic effects of growth hormone. Growth hormone is probably equally ineffective in healthy individuals.

    One study on young (aged 22-33), highly trained athletes did show a significant increase in lean mass after six weeks of taking 2.67 milligrams (about 8 units) per day.(3) However this increase was only 4%, and may have not included any muscle mass at all. It seems overwhelming clear that growth hormone is either non-anabolic or very weakly anabolic for skeletal muscle when taken by itself, and it definitely not worth the large price if you are taking it solely for gaining muscle. The only real use in gaining muscle may be as a synergistic agent with testosterone. A synergistic effect of taking growth hormone with testosterone has been reported for increases in lean mass, but further research needs to be done to see if this synergistic effects holds for skeletal muscle. Keep in mind that some increases in lean mass are not desirable. Growing some organs too big such as kidneys can produce some embarrassing effects seen in some professional bodybuilders. You do not want your "guts" sticking blatantly out of your body.

    But enough on growth hormone for muscle gain. For information, see Bryan Haycock’s article in this issue or go to Michael Mooney’s web site. If you are going to spend the money on growth hormone to try to improve your body, your best bet is to use it as a fat loss or "sculpting" agent. The previously mentioned study with growth hormone on trained athletes did show an impressive 12% decrease in bodyfat. So well it is well established that testosterone is far, far better for building muscle than growth hormone, is growth hormone the better choice for fat loss? The research on this issue is mixed, and there is no easy answer to this question.

    One recent study put growth hormone head to head with testosterone and measured its effects on fat loss. In this study, men on growth hormone lost an average of 13% of their bodyfat compared to 5.8% in the group taking testosterone.(4) But before you jump to conclusions, there are a couple of reasons why this study doesn’t settle the question. For one thing, this study was on very old individuals (aged 65 to 88) who had low IGF-1 and testosterone levels. Another problem is that the doses of the hormones haven’t been reported yet (the study is only in abstract form right now) which also makes the comparison difficult to make. Most interesting about this study was that a synergistic effect was found in a group taking both testosterone and growth hormone, as they lost an average of 21% of their bodyfat. This is more than the averages of the testosterone alone and growth hormone alone groups combined.

    Not all studies have shown this dramatic of an effect on body fat. One study using fairly large doses (adjusted by weight, but roughly 5 mg per day) on obese women failed to show any significant effects on body fat.(5) The growth hormone group lost less than two pounds more than the placebo group over a one month period. The main significant result was that the growth hormone group lost much less lean mass (an average loss of 1.52 kg compared to 3.79 in the placebo). While this may seem impressive, the same results could be achieved with a caffeine/ephedrine formula at a fraction of the price. While there are a good number of studies showing growth hormone to be effective for fat loss, testosterone may be almost as good for this purpose.

    Testosterone was recently found to be effective for fat loss in young men even in small doses. One recent study showed that men given only 100 milligrams per week of testosterone enanthate lost an average of six percent of their bodyfat after eight weeks.(6) 100 mg per week is generally considered a very low dose by bodybuilding standards. Most impressive about this study was that the result was obtained in young, normal healthy men (aged 18 to 45), not obese or testosterone deficient. Most of the studies showing positive effects with hormone replacement therapy are on subjects who are obese or hormone deficient – i.e. the very subjects most likely to respond. While the amount of muscle gain reported in this study was not reported (it is still just in abstract form), another study showed 100 mg per week of testosterone enanthate was not anabolic.(7) It appears that testosterone has a strong mechanism for fat loss other than increased ********* rate from increased muscle. Considering how much cheaper testosterone is than growth hormone, it may well be the cost-effective choice for burning fat even if it is slightly less effective overall.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Safety of Growth Hormone and Testosterone
    Testosterone is widely believed to be far more dangerous than growth hormone. However, recent research is rapidly showing that much of these dangers have been exaggerated. For instance, the hypothesis that testosterone causes prostate cancer has never been established. In fact, one study even showed a slight negative correlation between testosterone levels and prostate cancer! A study on young men given supraphysiologic doses of testosterone showed no change is prostate specific antigen (PSA), which is one measure of prostate cancer risk.(8)

    Growth hormone may also be less dangerous to the prostate than previously believed. One study showed strong positive correlation with prostate cancer and IGF-1 levels.(9) Since growth hormone stimulates IGF-1 synthesis in the liver, this study and others bring up the possibility of a link of growth hormone and prostate and breast cancer. Keep in mind that statistical correlations do not necessarily prove causality, i.e. IGF-1 has not yet been proven to be a cancer-causing villain. Actually IGF-11 may be one of the culprits in the cancer story, and not IGF-1. At the Serano sponsored Symposia on the Endocrinology of Aging in October, 1999 and at the Endocrine Society Meeting in June, 1999 there was an informal consensus that patients on growth hormone did not increase their risk of breast or prostate cancer. Several other recent studies have also cast doubt on the role of growth hormone as a cancer-causing villain.

    Testosterone may have also gotten a bad rap for its effects on blood lipids. Since testosterone and other anabolic steroids have been shown in some studies to lower HDL cholesterol levels, it was believed that testosterone may increase the risk for heart disease. This was refuted in one recent study on testosterone that showed some positive results. A study on 21 hypogonadal men (aged 36 to 57) showed a replacement dose of testosterone using the Androderm transdermal patch to reduce blood clotting.(9) While HDL levels did drop slightly, blood coagulability is believed to be the more important marker of heart disease risk. Another study showed a very strong negative correlation with testosterone levels and heart disease.

    Growth hormone has shown mixed results on its effects on heart disease risk. One study on elderly men and women (aged 65-88) showed that growth hormone administration to lower LDL levels, but raised triglyceride levels.(10) Since high LDL and triglyceride levels are considered measures of heart disease risk, growth hormone’s effects on heart disease risk are ambiguous. However, long-term use of growth hormone as been shown to decrease the thickness of the carotid artery lining – i.e. increased room for blood flow.

    While much more research needs to be done, I am convinced right now that testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men may be safer than excessively large doses of growth hormone. The long-term studies have not yet been done to test the true long-term effects of these hormones, but the research seems quite clear at the moment. Michael Mooney has reported similar results on safety and side effects of these hormones:

    While none of the studies on testosterone or anabolic steroids used for HIV have documented any significant health problems associated with their proper therapeutic use, Dr. Gabe Torres' data on his patients who experienced a reduction in symptoms of HIV-related lipodystrophy with Serostim growth hormone showed that at the standard 5 and 6 mg doses, 80 percent of his HIV patients experienced significant side effects, that included elevated glucose, elevated pancreatic enzymes, or carpal tunnel syndrome. (1)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conclusion
    Don’t get me wrong – I still use both growth hormone and testosterone as part of overall anti-aging programs in my patients. This article is not meant to say one hormone is "good" and another is "bad". It is just my opinion at the moment that the overall benefit/cost ratio for improving body composition is higher with testosterone than growth hormone. By cost, I mean both the monetary price – testosterone is far cheaper than growth hormone, and the side effect/safety profile – testosterone is safer than high-dose growth hormone use.

    Since growth hormone is extremely expensive and perhaps riskier than testosterone, I screen patients very carefully and only recommend it to those who either have very low IGF-1 levels and fail growth hormone stimulation tests, or those who have failed to respond to testosterone or other therapies. The new research has also made me confident in encouraging more and more patients to go on testosterone. However, we must keep constant track of the new research to better refine both anti-aging and bodybuilding programs. The science of hormone supplementation is still in its infancy, and there is still a lot more questions that need to be answered.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    References
    1. Mooney, Michael, HIV Study Shows No Muscle Growth From Serostim Growth Hormone, Medibolics, July, 1999

    2. Yarasheski KE; Campbell JA; Smith K; Rennie MJ; Holloszy JO; Bier DM. Am J Physiol Effect of growth hormone and resistance exercise on muscle growth in young men. Am J Physiol, 262(3 Pt 1):E261-7 1992 Mar

    3. Crist DM, et al. Body composition response to exogenous GH during training in highly conditioned adults. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Aug;65(2):579-84.

    4. Blackman, MR, et al. Effects of growth hormone and/or sex steroid administration on body composition in healthy elderly women and men, Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California

    5. Tagliaferri M, et al. ********* effects of biosynthetic growth hormone treatment in severely energy-restricted obese women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Sep;22(9):836-41.

    6. Anawalt, BD, et al. Testosterone administration to normal men decreases truncal and total body fat . Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California

    7. Friedl KE, et al. Comparison of the effects of high dose testosterone and 19-nortestosterone to a replacement dose of testosterone on strength and body composition in normal men. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1991;40(4-6):607-12

    8. Cooper, C.S., MacIndoe, J.H., Perry, P.J., Yates, W.R. and Williams, R.D.: The effect of exogenous testosterone on total and free prostate specific antigen levels in healthy young men. J Urol, 156:438, 1996.

    9. Wallace, J., et. al (1998) Growth Hormone and IGF Res (abstract) 8(4): 329, 348

    10. Christmas, C. et al, Effects of growth hormone and/or sex steroid administration on serum lipid profiles in healthy elderly women and men, Presented at 1999 Endrocrine Society conference, San Diego, California
    __________________
    Stone Cold..............................Never Too Old



    Disclaimer: Steroidology.com does not promote the use of anabolic steroids without a doctor's prescription. The information we share is for entertainment purposes only.

  4. #4
    Amatuer MMA Fighter Skinny...In a Big Way's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    536
    Rep Power
    9
    yea thats exactly what i was just about to say....

    good post, even though it wasnt my question i learned something new

  5. #5
    Novice
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rehab
    Posts
    70
    Rep Power
    0
    HGH needs to be run longer than 16 weeks, I would say 5 months at least.

  6. #6
    Amatuer MMA Fighter Skinny...In a Big Way's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    536
    Rep Power
    9
    yea i thought people did HGH for atleast 10 months

  7. #7
    Extra Juicy JackednRipped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by massive
    I would like your feedback on which method is better for muscle size. For price comparisons I know that test is alot cheaper than HGH. Although on taking test alone and HGH alone, test would be the better in muscle size, whereas the HGH would only put a little muscle on but the fat reductions of it would be far better than the test fat reductions.

    What would be the effects of adding insulin and t3 aswel in regards to muscle building effects?

    Also say cycling with a stack of say test,drol and equipoise for say 16wks, would the addition of HGH and maybe insulin make a bigger impact in muscle size?

    Without a doubt, a combo of the two would yield the best results.

    As far as adding slin and gh, it will enhance your results, but don't expect some drastic change in the outcome.

  8. #8
    Junior Bodybuilder massive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    middlesbrough, england
    Posts
    375
    Rep Power
    11
    So for price comparison a test stack would yield better results?

    Stats
    BF 9%
    Height 5"10
    Weight 230lbs
    7th cycle

  9. #9
    Junior Bodybuilder massive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    middlesbrough, england
    Posts
    375
    Rep Power
    11
    So are you saying that over a long period of say 6months plus HGH would give better results than a 16wk AS course?

    Or combine the both a 16wk AS course and 6month of HGH?

  10. #10
    Extra Juicy JackednRipped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by massive
    So are you saying that over a long period of say 6months plus HGH would give better results than a 16wk AS course?

    Or combine the both a 16wk AS course and 6month of HGH?
    Combine both.

    In the end, Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) will increase hypertrophy and hgh will assist in hyperplasia. You see the best results from using them together.

  11. #11
    Thoms
    Guest
    Given the choice, Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) far outweigh the size gains of HGH, especially in that short time frame. Naturally using both will give better results, but most can be contributed to AAS.

  12. #12
    Death Dealer ManOfMuscle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    19,221
    Rep Power
    32
    No reason to have a poll for this, of course test is going to be better for size and of course test + hgh is going to be better than test alone all variables being equal.

  13. #13
    Olympian Bodybuilder APOLLON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,741
    Rep Power
    15
    HGH is dangerous area...way to deep for me.

    Test is enough...imo

    Does HGH effect the libido?

  14. #14
    Death Dealer ManOfMuscle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    19,221
    Rep Power
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by APOLLON
    HGH is dangerous area...way to deep for me.

    Que?

  15. #15
    Extra Juicy JackednRipped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by APOLLON
    HGH is dangerous area...way to deep for me.

    Test is enough...imo

    Does HGH effect the libido?
    How's it dangerous?


    No it doesn't effect libido.

  16. #16
    Thoms
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by LiftTillIDie
    No reason to have a poll for this, of course test is going to be better for size and of course test + hgh is going to be better than test alone all variables being equal.
    Exactly.

  17. #17
    Community Veteran Mudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    10,496
    Rep Power
    16
    GH by itself is not a builder.
    He who overcomes others has force; He who overcomes himself is strong. Lao-tzu

  18. #18
    OntheRoadBack monstro54245's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    NEXTDOOR
    Posts
    178
    Rep Power
    8
    For the Buck and from the research I'd say Test in combo with Deca would give longer term results.
    Iif you have the coin slip in the GH but it's a luxury item. I think.

  19. #19
    Tren Freak mustanged77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    586
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinny...In a Big Way
    yea thats exactly what i was just about to say....

    good post, even though it wasnt my question i learned something new
    I'm pretty sure this is the answer to your question. I'm sure there will be people keep giving feedback until you hear what you wanna hear, But this is as good as it gets.

    Great info StoneCold!

  20. #20
    Cotex is my Bitch-Boy Osiris of dis Shit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    SeaLab
    Posts
    2,964
    Rep Power
    28
    Using these AIDS patients to get a read on the effectiveness of HGH doesn't really make the point IMO. I can't count how many guys I know who used to buy their HGH off AIDS patients who had prescriptions. They had scripts for massive amounts of HGH (about like the numbers they referred to in that study)

    Unless they were actually injecting these guys themselves every day for 12 weeks then I'm not sold on those results. Who's to say they didn't just sell it? Most of those guys would trade it for drugs - not trying to be an asshole, but it's true - most of those guys would rather have X anyday than 15iu of HGH a day. I swear that must be where half the black market American HGH comes from

  21. #21
    Pro Bodybuilder pineapple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,282
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by massive
    I would like your feedback on which method is better for muscle size. For price comparisons I know that test is alot cheaper than HGH. Although on taking test alone and HGH alone, test would be the better in muscle size, whereas the HGH would only put a little muscle on but the fat reductions of it would be far better than the test fat reductions.

    What would be the effects of adding insulin and t3 aswel in regards to muscle building effects?

    Also say cycling with a stack of say test,drol and equipoise for say 16wks, would the addition of HGH and maybe insulin make a bigger impact in muscle size?
    When asking a question like this; it's always important that you list your stats and your experience.
    Otherwise you'd be putting it like this:
    Which is best for mass, hgh alone, test alone, or both together.
    Subject 1: 130lbs, 5'10, 10%bf
    Subject 2: 250lbs, 5'10, 10%bf

    Test alone would be enough for subject 1. And HGH plus test would be good for subject 2.

  22. #22
    Pro Bodybuilder pineapple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,282
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudge
    GH by itself is not a builder.
    Too many people think it is and then post that HGH is useless. Well, yeah. The studies were done on the elderly using HGH, so they have something to gain.

    When noobs go on the internet searching info on HGH that is the info they get. But they dont realize that the results from HGH came from elderly subjects that used HGH, not healthy young adult males.

  23. #23
    Trained and Educated Hacksquater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    249
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoms
    Given the choice, Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS) far outweigh the size gains of HGH, especially in that short time frame. Naturally using both will give better results, but most can be contributed to AAS.

    I agree. If you want a short answer Testosterone is king!

    http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cattestc.htm is a good profile on it.

    And HGH:

    http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cathuman.htm

    It should answer all your q's.

  24. #24
    Junior Bodybuilder
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The Gym
    Posts
    309
    Rep Power
    11
    Well of course the 2 together r gonna work the best but as singles def the Test.

  25. #25
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    0
    Yep you are right. Choosing between test and HGH is very hard. But i recommend testosterone, from what i have heard hgh puts on on lots of mass even on your organ so choose. But if you workout nicely it will just as good. For more info why not have a look here.

    bodybuildingbeach.com
    Last edited by proorwad; 10-23-2013 at 06:19 AM.

uniquemicals
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  

3Js Nutrition Network

juicepump







mr supps



health and fitness talk

3Js Nutrition Network



solid muscle isolate 5lb





solid muscle isolate 5lb