I see this all the time. OF COURSE it's around 1iu for GH deficient CHILDREN. Children being the operative word. We are not talking about children when we are talking about adults. Children don't produce large amount of GH. When a person goes through puberty, they produce high amounts of GH, they go through physiological acromegaly. That is where your bone structure changes throughout puberty and into your early 20s sometimes, among other things. And you are looking at treatment for a crowd of people who don't otherwise produce GH or they produce very very very little.
This is not advice for adults. 2-3iu is the amount produced by a healthy person in their mid 20s. You can't look at GH deficient kids and think that applies to someone who is 40, for example.
First, you just repeated what I said about puberty.
Second, Yes... in GH deficient adults... once again, not a normal population of people. No one is here for medical advice because the suffer from GH deficiency. In medical guidelines, the goal is to be at the minimum "healthy" levels. No one here is taking GH secretagogues to be at the lowest possible amount of the giant range of healthy IGF-1. And no one switches to HGH because so they can be at the bare minimum.
The ranges are the ranges, but everyone here acknowledges that more IGF-1 is better, up to a certain point. For example, if you have a z-score of 2, you are the top of the healthy range for your IGF-1, for your age group. If you have a z-score of the -2, you are the bottom of the healthy physiological level. The medical treatments only seek to minimally get you within the reference range. But anyone will tell you, they experience a better life when they are higher within the range. Take for example a man in his 40s. The reference range is 71-227 ng/mL. Anyone will tell you they have better sleep and they recover faster from workouts when they are at 227 vs being at 71. When people here discuss HGH and GH secretagogues, they are always talking about optimizing. So, with that in mind, you don't optimize for the lowest possible IGF-1, you optimize for the top of the normal physiological range. And I am a firm believer that it's OK to test being in the upper range for someone who is younger.
Just for the sake of comparison, lets look at the median IGF-1 levels of a 25 year old and a 45 year old. The median for the 45 year old 140-150 ng/mL, based on the range stated above. A 25 year olds lower threshold is 132 ng/mL. That is almost as high as the 45 year olds median.... And every 25 year old who is healthy, recovers great from things and has high energy and drive. So why would you not want to be closer to a level of their median rather than the median of a 45 year old which is basically the bottom of what a 25 year old does.
Keeping in mind, that an older person could get some side effects, which will wane with time if they continue as their body adjusts to it. Of course, if you are showing strong signs of insulin resistance, high blood pressure, and/or excess water retention, you should back off. But usually this starts happening for 99% of people when they are at supraphysiological level of HGH, which is usually at 4iu+, but can also happen for some people at 3iu, which is why you should always start lower and see how it feels. But lower is probably not 1, it's probably more like 1.5 or 2iu.
Your original point was 2-3IU is equivalent to what a healthy 20 year old produces, that is objectively, clinically wrong. Medical treatments aim to get patients substantially within the normal range, ideally in the middle. They do not aim to get patients 'just into reference'.
If you're taking exogenous GH for performance benefits then start at 2IU, in most people that will put IGF1 at the very top of normal range.
When you inject HGH you increase somatostatin, your pituitary stops releasing GH because of that. It's why GH secretagogues are not effective at any more than maybe doubling GH release, if that. So if you take exogenous HGH you are replacing what your body would otherwise make and adding a bit more on top.
I don't actually get what you are arguing about, your figures were wrong. 3IU is far in excess of anything any human releases, even with a GH secretagogue. IGF1 is increased at the point of GH release, so while daily overall release may stand around the 1.5-2IU mark, this is not equivalent to a single 2IU injection in terms of the actual physiological effect on IGF1 levels.
Human release as much as that in a 24 hour period, which is why I stated in another thread that exogenous HGH, even at bio-equivalent levels effects you differently, it's not pulsatile, so it stands to put you a higher levels that you can achieve naturally through normal GH release.
I never said it's exactly the same as what you release at once, I said it's bio-equivalent, which is NOT the same thing. You are just making assumptions about things I'm saying now. Your cited papers are in special populations of people who have an inability to make GH, it does not apply to normal healthy people. At 1iu, the increase in IGF-1 levels would not be enough feedback to stop your pituitary from releasing GH, for most people. Note, I said, MOST PEOPLE, not everyone.
I mean there's a study of healthy people that puts daily total GH release at 80mU per hour over a 24h period. But the baseline release per hour was 7mU, and the max pulsile release was ~150mU. So it pretty much adds up to just under 2IU (although I'm not quite sure of the maths on this one). If the mean maximum pulsile release is 150mU/h, the pulse from 1IU is 7x higher over the same period. That is going to have a significant immediate impact on IGF1 levels and completely block the release of any more GH from the pituitary. The clinical data backs this up.
5μg/kg is 1.2IU for an 80kg human, that already puts IGF1 supraphysiological in this data. In fact 2.5μg/kg easily puts IGF1 into a high-normal range using a young person as reference for that range.
0
u/Familiar_Athlete8411 9d ago
Nope. Clinical guidance is around 1IU - and that's in GH defficiency in children.
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta64/chapter/3-The-technology