HeightMaxxing Myths (GROUNDBREAKING INFORMATION!) (PROOF MK677 ISN'T COPE!)

[20/04/2008]

Today, I'll be going through a heightmaxxing myth and providing some new information that backs up certain theories.

MYTH: MK-677 isn't useful for height growth.

At one time, I used to agree that MK677 wouldn't be viable in a height growth context because of the lack of IU'S of GH it produces but some recent studies regarding the compound have made me change my opinions.

Lumos Pharma Announces Encouraging Interim Results from Two Phase 2 Trials Evaluating Oral LUM-201 for Moderate Pediatric Growth Hormone Deficiency
Now, this study right here is very groundbreaking as they discover that LUM-201 ( fancy name for MK677) has some viability in regards to increasing height velocity in growth hormone deficient children, and it produces very comparable results to growth hormone itself.

View attachment 2079206

As you can see from the table above, after a year of MK677 usage, there is only about a 1.79 cm difference in growth velocity. THIS IS FUCKING REMARKABLE and helps show that MK677 is usable in a height growth context for open growth plates,

BUTTTT........

depending on how heavy you are, this could mean you will have to take up to 70-100 mg a day of MK677. The lower your body weight, the lower your dose has to be but, you will have to take a lot of MK677 to produce similar results to 34 μg of Growth hormone.
HOWEVER, IF YOU CAN REDUCE PROLACTIN SIDES, AND GET YOUR WATER RETENTION UNDER CONTROL, YOU CAN GET SOME SERIOUS HEIGHT GAINS.

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE TO FORM YOUR OWN OPINION THOUGH.

Next, I am going to talk about a study where they essentially used the HGH + AI combo that we talk about so much in this forum but in late puberty, which is a more useful context for people on here.

Now, this study actually proves that the combination of HGH + AI could give you 8 cm if taken between 15.2 - 16 years old, depending on bone age obviously.

A randomized pilot trial of growth hormone with anastrozole versus growth hormone alone, starting at the very end of puberty in adolescents with idiopathic short stature

View attachment 2079222
View attachment 2079224


IN CONCLUSION, I BELIEVE THAT RECENT STUDIES PROVE THAT MK677 IS NOT COPE AND THAT AT BEST YOU CAN MOST LIKELY GROW 3-4 INCHES IF AROUND THE AGE OF 15.2-16 WITH A BONE AGE IN THAT REGION.

If you saw any gains from mk that mean you were hgh deficient and it also had undirect effect making you hungry so you eat more eating
In studies they use 15-50 iu of hgh on 30 kg kids
And your telling me the 1-2 iu you produce using mk is gonna make a difference

 

[Osie]

If you saw any gains from mk that mean you were hgh deficient and it also had undirect effect making you hungry so you eat more eating
In studies they use 15-50 iu of hgh on 30 kg kids
And your telling me the 1-2 iu you produce using mk is gonna make a difference

What science are you referring to here? Why couldn't you see gains from MK677 if you weren't HGH deficient? I'm curious about why you think that is based on studies. Because I don't entirely disagree with you, but let me play devil's advocate. There are currently studies showcasing that MK677 can be used effectively to restore growth in children who have moderate growth hormone deficiency. Why couldn't you then extrapolate from there and see that it could have a clear use for children who don't even have growth hormone deficiency? It is currently attempted to be explored as an alternative to HGH and it's injections. So why in that case, could it not work on normal children and are you confident it's only 1-2 IU difference it'll make? While I am not saying you are completely off the money as it may not be useful in older teenagers, let's not be unfair here.

 

[20/04/2008]

What science are you referring to here? Why couldn't you see gains from MK677 if you weren't HGH deficient? I'm curious about why you think that is based on studies. Because I don't entirely disagree with you, but let me play devil's advocate. There are currently studies showcasing that MK677 can be used effectively to restore growth in children who have moderate growth hormone deficiency. Why couldn't you then extrapolate from there and see that it could have a clear use for children who don't even have growth hormone deficiency? It is currently attempted to be explored as an alternative to HGH and it's injections. So why in that case, could it not work on normal children and are you confident it's only 1-2 IU difference it'll make? While I am not saying you are completely off the money as it may not be useful in older teenagers, let's not be unfair here.

Bro wtf does the study have to do with anything
No 1-2 iu isnt gonna do anything
You produce between 0.5-2 iu of hgh
Mk 667 depending on dosages and genetic would increase your hgh buy 0.5-2 iu
So lets say you were hgh deficient you had like 0.25 iu if you take mk 667 you’ll get 2.25 iu and you’ll have a massive growth phase
While if you were already having normal hgh levels say 1 iu and took mk 667 and got 1.5 iu i dont think their will be a difference .
Resume : Stop being a coward and inject yourself like a Men
If your to poor to afford hgh use multiple peptides And optimize other factors for maximum hgh output