Hgh is not cope (as long as your plates are open)

[John183]

The claim that HGH is cope - is false.

Why is HGH slandered by a large groups of retards?
HGH is said to have no effect on FAH (final adult height) as you cant get past your "genetic limit", even IF you use it while plates are open. There is not a switch in your fucking body that tells you to stop growing (well growth plates are but this entire threat is under the assumption your plates ARE OPEN). The main claim against - HGH is cope - is that gigantism patients dont stop growing. This claim is false to an extent, gigantism patients have delayed puberty ALONG with delayed plate closure due to the absurbly disrupted and broken natrual feedback loop of their growth. With that being said, exogenous GH has the same effect (all assuming plates are open). Everyone who agree with the claim that HGH is cope also agrees with the claim that HGH does not effect the feedback loop at all, which is a retarded claim? The studies they provide are also completly bunk, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4004899/, first thread dont know how to make it a link, (paste it in new tab).

Debunking study
This study starts off by making it seem as it claims that GH is almost useless and WORSE to use in kids with non-GHD (growth hormone deficiency). "The above findings and considerations demonstrate that the effect of GH treatment is dose-dependent and suggest that doses over 0.23 mg/kg/week are necessary to achieve meaningful improvements in adult height in non-GHD short children. We conclude that GH treatment in non-GHD short children in Japan does not improve the adult height of treated children because the GH dose currently being administered, 0.175 mg/kg/week, is insufficient." This is the end result of the study. The conclusion in the MAIN study fags bring up while saying GH is cope literally PROVES them wrong. The fact that theres a difference in FAH with and without GH proves them wrong. This study certainly is intresting though, as the non-GHD kids had shorter FAH's than the controlled group (not receiving treatment). Lets look more into it. The group receiving growth hormone in this study were receiving 0.175 mg/kg/week equivalent to 0.5 IU/kg/week, the kids were 6 years old. The average weight of a 6 year old in kg is 20.5 to 20.8, but lets call it 22 since kids be fat asl nowadays. With that info we can assume these kids were getting 11 ius/week. Thats approximately 1.5714 ius a day. Now it makes perfect since why the non treated GH group ended up taller. " the average adult height of 9 GH-treated non-GHD short boys, 154.2 cm, was significantly shorter than the adult height of 18 untreated short boys, 162.0 cm (8). Bone age at the onset of puberty did not differ significantly between the groups, but pubertal height gain was significantly greater in the untreated boys. Yet the approximately 1-yr bone age difference at the start of treatment, though it was not statistically significant, might cause to early epiphyseal closure and hence lower the adult height in the GH-treated group rather than GH treatment itself." The study is claiming that the 1 year bone age difference is a possible reason the GH treated group was shorter, No, it was because the treated GH group was receiving a lower than natural GH production dose. Digusting for the scientist to do that to those poor kids, they are now 5'1 because of those fags. Ive already brutlized anyone who claims "Gh is cope and will only increase velocity of growth".

Debunking "GH only increases height velocity not FAH"
GH certainly increases the rate of growth AND the amount of it signifigantly. By the way if your plates are open use 8+ ius as a minimum, and obviously protect yourself to the dangerous effects of high dosing HGH. Back to the point, lets start a hypothetical, if a natural healthy 12 year old boy were to use 8-10ius of HGH, he will grow signifigantly taller than his natural FAH, HGH does not speed growth plate closure as it doesnt direcly act on E2. If you E2 if different from HGH that is from high dosing it messing with other growth pathways which CAN effect e2, but overall there wont be a huge e2 tank upwards. However, the bone age of the boy will be signifigantly greater than a non treated gh control patient, but in the end, means nothing when the GH treated boy is still 10-15cm taller than the non treated.

Final height of short normal children treated with growth hormone - PubMed

Long-term therapy in this group of children appears safe but the small increment in final height, approximately 2.8 cm in boys and 2.5 cm in girls, does not justify the widespread use of r-hGH for short normal children.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This study used a HGH dosing range from 0.02 to 0.04/kg/day with kids (unknown age) lets call it 12 as it was pre-puberty. "Treatment had no effect on the timing of puberty. Boys progressed slightly faster through puberty, associated with an acceleration in bone-age maturation. No untoward effects on glucose metabolism were observed. Long-term therapy did not alter body-fat distribution or blood pressure." obviously, the bone age maturation will be increased but these kids were taking approx 0.12iu/kg/day ----> approx 4.86 iu/day, that is about 2x the average production of a normal healthy 12 year old boy. The findings - "Long-term therapy in this group of children appears safe but the small increment in final height, approximately 2.8 cm in boys and 2.5 cm in girls, does not justify the widespread use of r-hGH for short normal children." for a 2x of hgh in boys starting at 12 (prediction age) resulted gain of 1.1 inches of FAH. Using this metric now, using approx 0.1mg/kg/day of HGH (PLATES OPEN) will dramtically increase height by 3-4 inches minimum.

First threat LMK, would love to be proven wrong and obliterated (not a cuck) I know I wont be, If your plates are open, please do 0.1mg/kg/day of HGH, you wont regret it. If this thread goes well, I will go into the periosteal appositon gains next one

 

[shouldiusehgh]

investing

 

[Niebvll]

DNR

Youre using an ISS study you fucking moron

 

[Niebvll]

Tiok a little longer because I was literalld in court.

The claim that HGH is cope - is false.

Why is HGH slandered by a large groups of retards?
HGH is said to have no effect on FAH (final adult height) as you cant get past your "genetic limit", even IF you use it while plates are open.

There is no such defined thing as a genetic limit.

There is not a switch in your fucking body that tells you to stop growing (well growth plates are but this entire threat is under the assumption your plates ARE OPEN). The main claim against - HGH is cope - is that gigantism patients dont stop growing.

This is completely false, they of course stop growing, the chronological stop of longitudinal growth is about the same as for any other teen.

This claim is false to an extent, gigantism patients have delayed puberty ALONG with delayed plate closure due to the absurbly disrupted and broken natrual feedback loop of their growth. With that being said, exogenous GH has the same effect (all assuming plates are open).

Gigantism patients are inherently different than GH therapy patients because of their constant and lifelong excessive GH exposure instead of a few years of GH starting peripubertal. GH therapy will never be able to mimic gigantism, neither in patients who need it nor in those who dont.

Everyone who agree with the claim that HGH is cope also agrees with the claim that HGH does not effect the feedback loop at all, which is a retarded claim?

This is an absolutely horrid argument, there is no reason to assume this at all.

The studies they provide are also completly bunk, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4004899/, first thread dont know how to make it a link, (paste it in new tab).

Debunking study
This study starts off by making it seem as it claims that GH is almost useless and WORSE to use in kids with non-GHD (growth hormone deficiency). "The above findings and considerations demonstrate that the effect of GH treatment is dose-dependent and suggest that doses over 0.23 mg/kg/week are necessary to achieve meaningful improvements in adult height in non-GHD short children.

We conclude that GH treatment in non-GHD short children in Japan does not improve the adult height of treated children because the GH dose currently being administered, 0.175 mg/kg/week, is insufficient." This is the end result of the study. The conclusion in the MAIN study fags bring up while saying GH is cope literally PROVES them wrong.

All it does is prove your own "starts off" interpretation wrong. Personally I've also never seen anyone use this to justify arguments against normal dose GH therapy, your subjective experience doesnt make this study the "main" one that some supposedly existing connected "gh is cope" group uses. Just as mine doesnt prove that noone at all uses it. Framing it like this is the whole argument that exists is incredibly ignorant.

The fact that theres a difference in FAH with and without GH proves them wrong. This study certainly is intresting though, as the non-GHD kids had shorter FAH's than the controlled group (not receiving treatment). Lets look more into it. The group receiving growth hormone in this study were receiving 0.175 mg/kg/week equivalent to 0.5 IU/kg/week, the kids were 6 years old. The average weight of a 6 year old in kg is 20.5 to 20.8, but lets call it 22 since kids be fat asl nowadays. With that info we can assume these kids were getting 11 ius/week. Thats approximately 1.5714 ius a day. Now it makes perfect since why the non treated GH group ended up taller. " the average adult height of 9 GH-treated non-GHD short boys, 154.2 cm, was significantly shorter than the adult height of 18 untreated short boys, 162.0 cm (8). Bone age at the onset of puberty did not differ significantly between the groups, but pubertal height gain was significantly greater in the untreated boys. Yet the approximately 1-yr bone age difference at the start of treatment, though it was not statistically significant, might cause to early epiphyseal closure and hence lower the adult height in the GH-treated group rather than GH treatment itself." The study is claiming that the 1 year bone age difference is a possible reason the GH treated group was shorter, No, it was because the treated GH group was receiving a lower than natural GH production dose. Digusting for the scientist to do that to those poor kids, they are now 5'1 because of those fags. Ive already brutlized anyone who claims "Gh is cope and will only increase velocity of growth".

Brutalized absolutely noone, all you showed was that low dose GH therapy is counterproductive (water)

Debunking "GH only increases height velocity not FAH"
GH certainly increases the rate of growth AND the amount of it signifigantly. By the way if your plates are open use 8+ ius as a minimum, and obviously protect yourself to the dangerous effects of high dosing HGH.
Back to the point, lets start a hypothetical, if a natural healthy 12 year old boy were to use 8-10ius of HGH, he will grow signifigantly taller than his natural FAH,

He absolutely wont. You literally gave 0 argument for this? Assuming treatment starts with 12 is also absolutely unrealistic considering the average age here is definetely a few years higher. If you genuinely think anyone saying GH is cope means it in another way than for so called 'heightmaxxers' using it youre absolutely mistaken. However even at 12 treatment is likely gonna start too late to make meaningful differences.

HGH does not speed growth plate closure as it doesnt direcly act on E2.

It does by speeding up cell differentiation in the rz and pz

If you E2 if different from HGH that is from high dosing it messing with other growth pathways which CAN effect e2, but overall there wont be a huge e2 tank upwards.

Please learn how to properly form sentences in English.

However, the bone age of the boy will be signifigantly greater than a non treated gh control patient,

You admit to the increased bone age? Why would you say this when 2 sentences ago you claimed there is no speeding up growth plate fusion? GH can quite literally lead to exactly this, the only point is that its not "prematurely" regarding the growth plates itself, merely by chronological age of the patient.

but in the end, means nothing when the GH treated boy is still 10-15cm taller than the non treated.

There is absolutely no basis to claim that this would ever happen.

Final height of short normal children treated with growth hormone - PubMed

Long-term therapy in this group of children appears safe but the small increment in final height, approximately 2.8 cm in boys and 2.5 cm in girls, does not justify the widespread use of r-hGH for short normal children.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This study used a HGH dosing range from 0.02 to 0.04/kg/day with kids (unknown age) lets call it 12 as it was pre-puberty. "Treatment had no effect on the timing of puberty. Boys progressed slightly faster through puberty, associated with an acceleration in bone-age maturation. No untoward effects on glucose metabolism were observed. Long-term therapy did not alter body-fat distribution or blood pressure." obviously, the bone age maturation will be increased but these kids were taking approx 0.12iu/kg/day ----> approx 4.86 iu/day, that is about 2x the average production of a normal healthy 12 year old boy. The findings - "Long-term therapy in this group of children appears safe but the small increment in final height, approximately 2.8 cm in boys and 2.5 cm in girls, does not justify the widespread use of r-hGH for short normal children." for a 2x of hgh in boys starting at 12 (prediction age) resulted gain of 1.1 inches of FAH. Using this metric now, using approx 0.1mg/kg/day of HGH (PLATES OPEN) will dramtically increase height by 3-4 inches minimum.

1 you cannot just estimate such increases by pure dose adjustments, its unclear whether increases in dosage directly leads to linear result increase. Secondly, you absolutely fail to realise that this study was performed entirely on children with ISS whose polygenetic situation presents an exclusivity in both positive and negative treatment results which can thus not ne applied to normal children.

 

[sheyasss]

y

Tiok a little longer because I was literalld in court.

There is no such defined thing as a genetic limit.

This is completely false, they of course stop growing, the chronological stop of longitudinal growth is about the same as for any other teen.

Gigantism patients are inherently different than GH therapy patients because of their constant and lifelong excessive GH exposure instead of a few years of GH starting peripubertal. GH therapy will never be able to mimic gigantism, neither in patients who need it nor in those who dont.

This is an absolutely horrid argument, there is no reason to assume this at all.

All it does is prove your own "starts off" interpretation wrong. Personally I've also never seen anyone use this to justify arguments against normal dose GH therapy, your subjective experience doesnt make this study the "main" one that some supposedly existing connected "gh is cope" group uses. Just as mine doesnt prove that noone at all uses it. Framing it like this is the whole argument that exists is incredibly ignorant.

Brutalized absolutely noone, all you showed was that low dose GH therapy is counterproductive (water)

He absolutely wont. You literally gave 0 argument for this? Assuming treatment starts with 12 is also absolutely unrealistic considering the average age here is definetely a few years higher. If you genuinely think anyone saying GH is cope means it in another way than for so called 'heightmaxxers' using it youre absolutely mistaken. However even at 12 treatment is likely gonna start too late to make meaningful differences.

It does by speeding up cell differentiation in the rz and pz

Please learn how to properly form sentences in English.

You admit to the increased bone age? Why would you say this when 2 sentences ago you claimed there is no speeding up growth plate fusion? GH can quite literally lead to exactly this, the only point is that its not "prematurely" regarding the growth plates itself, merely by chronological age of the patient.

There is absolutely no basis to claim that this would ever happen.

1 you cannot just estimate such increases by pure dose adjustments, its unclear whether increases in dosage directly leads to linear result increase. Secondly, you absolutely fail to realise that this study was performed entirely on children with ISS whose polygenetic situation presents an exclusivity in both positive and negative treatment results which can thus not ne applied to normal children.

yo chill dont murder the boy

 

[cutecelboi4587]

the study was lit done on 'short normal children'. NOT iss children