MK-677, hexarelin, GHRP's and Ipamorelin are not only cope but can be stunting your growth too!

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

Ghrelin agonists increase cAMP production --> This is linked with Chondrocyte apoptosis and acceleration of growth plate maturation.
Ghrelin acts on chondrocytes as a cell metabolic limiter, deletion of Ghrelin gene also didn't impair growth within rats majorly suggesting that the mechanisms
it triggers are likely irrelevant to chondrocyte proliferation.



paper

 

[bIackpill]

oh no.... dont tell me that igf-1 also does that pls

 

[Skeleton_Iqlet]

mk 677?

 

[darodiddler]

not mk bro but th ghrp yes

 

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

not mk bro but th ghrp yes

wym?

 

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

mk 677?

wym?

 

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

mk 677?

Now I know why... giving out iqlet advice the jokes really write themselves, 0 knowledge in pharma talking shit this is clear cope. Like u do realize what a ghrelin agonist is right? You do know mk677 is also one too right??? You know that's the main mechanism behind its growth hormone release right???

 

[Skeleton_Iqlet]

Now I know why... giving out iqlet advice the jokes really write themselves, 0 knowledge in pharma talking shit this is clear cope. Like u do realize what a ghrelin agonist is right? You do know mk677 is also one too right??? You know that's the main mechanism behind its growth hormone release right???

View attachment 5153334

You’re mixing up a possible mechanism with actual proof. Just because you can make a theory from it doesn’t mean MK-677 has been proven to stunt growth.

Do you have any human studies showing lower final height, or are you just guessing from pathways?

 

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

You’re mixing up a possible mechanism with actual proof. Just because you can make a theory from it doesn’t mean MK-677 has been proven to stunt growth.

Do you have any human studies showing lower final height, or are you just guessing from pathways?

Did you even read or tried to skim over what I posted? The paper literally shows that ghrelin increases cAMP production which leads to chondrocyte cell apoptosis when triggered unnaturally and acts as a metabolic limiter of Chondrocyte cells. They also deleted ghrelin and it showed minimal to no disturbances in height growth within rats. - "are you just guessing from pathways" . Researchers can't test healthy children with ghrelin agonists for growth stunting, which is why they compensate with rats and the how the hormone interacts with the cell itself, "Do you have any human studies showing lower final height," . Jokes truly write themselves.


Nga also said possible mechanism when the mechanisms I listed are all proven and inferred it isn't proof the cope and retardedness from a single sentence kills me

 

[Skeleton_Iqlet]

I did read it. My point isn’t that the mechanism doesn’t exist, it’s that you’re treating it like it automatically proves growth stunting.Animal studies and cell studies are useful for forming hypotheses, but they don’t always predict what happens in humans. If they did, we wouldn’t need human trials in the first place.The paper may suggest that ghrelin has effects on chondrocytes, but that’s still a long way from proving that MK-677 reduces final adult height. Those are two different claims.

Did you even read or tried to skim over what I posted? The paper literally shows that ghrelin increases cAMP production which leads to chondrocyte cell apoptosis when triggered unnaturally and acts as a metabolic limiter of Chondrocyte cells. They also deleted ghrelin and it showed minimal to no disturbances in height growth within rats. - "are you just guessing from pathways" . Researchers can't test healthy children with ghrelin agonists for growth stunting, which is why they compensate with rats and the how the hormone interacts with the cell itself, "Do you have any human studies showing lower final height," . Jokes truly write themselves.

I’m not saying you’re definitely wrong. I’m saying the evidence you’re presenting is stronger for a possible mechanism than for a proven real-world outcome.

 

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

I did read it. My point isn’t that the mechanism doesn’t exist, it’s that you’re treating it like it automatically proves growth stunting.Animal studies and cell studies are useful for forming hypotheses, but they don’t always predict what happens in humans. If they did, we wouldn’t need human trials in the first place.The paper may suggest that ghrelin has effects on chondrocytes, but that’s still a long way from proving that MK-677 reduces final adult height. Those are two different claims.



I’m not saying you’re definitely wrong. I’m saying the evidence you’re presenting is stronger for a possible mechanism than for a proven real-world outcome.

You inferred that the well known mechanisms behind ghrelin agonists were uncertain, which they are proven mechanisms and the paper directly references them showing you didn't read a single bit, along with you stating it wasn't actual evidence when it fits the perfect prerequisites to be considered evidence. "If they did, we wouldn’t need human trials in the first place." Correct but the same goes for MK-677 and you suggesting it aids in growth. No human trials at all on typical children/teens, the same goes for any other gh secretagogue you vouched. The paper and the references in the paper all conclude it acts as a metabolic regulatory of chondrocytes. This directly makes your point "saying the evidence you’re presenting is stronger for a possible mechanism than for a proven real-world outcome" invalid and bad faith since your misrepresenting these proven mechanisms as possible and my argument itself. If you consider this a long way from proving it reduces final adult height, then the same methodology applies behind your conclusions with other ghrelin agonists, and even worse since they isolate one mechanism of ghrelin and just hope it aids in surpassing final adult height.

 

[Skeleton_Iqlet]

You inferred that the well known mechanisms behind ghrelin agonists were uncertain, which they are proven mechanisms and the paper directly references them showing you didn't read a single bit, along with you stating it wasn't actual evidence when it fits the perfect prerequisites to be considered evidence. "If they did, we wouldn’t need human trials in the first place." Correct but the same goes for MK-677 and you suggesting it aids in growth. No human trials at all on typical children/teens, the same goes for any other gh secretagogue you vouched. The paper and the references in the paper all conclude it acts as a metabolic regulatory of chondrocytes. This directly makes your point "saying the evidence you’re presenting is stronger for a possible mechanism than for a proven real-world outcome" invalid and bad faith since your misrepresenting these proven mechanisms as possible and my argument itself. If you consider this a long way from proving it reduces final adult height, then the same methodology applies behind your conclusions with other ghrelin agonists, and even worse since they isolate one mechanism of ghrelin and just hope it aids in surpassing final adult height.

I’m not denying the mechanism. The paper clearly shows ghrelin affects chondrocyte metabolism and increases cAMP production. My issue is that you’re treating those findings as if they already prove growth stunting.The study never measured growth plate closure, final height, or reduced longitudinal growth. It looked at cellular effects and then discussed possible implications. Even the authors describe the apoptosis/hypertrophy explanation as a hypothesis that requires further study. So I agree the mechanism exists. What I don’t agree with is the claim that this paper demonstrates ghrelin agonists or MK-677 reduce final adult height. That’s a much stronger conclusion than what was actually tested.If we’re going to be strict about evidence, then we should separate evidence of a biological mechanism from evidence of a real-world growth outcome. They’re not the same thing.

 

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

I’m not denying the mechanism. The paper clearly shows ghrelin affects chondrocyte metabolism and increases cAMP production. My issue is that you’re treating those findings as if they already prove growth stunting.The study never measured growth plate closure, final height, or reduced longitudinal growth. It looked at cellular effects and then discussed possible implications. Even the authors describe the apoptosis/hypertrophy explanation as a hypothesis that requires further study. So I agree the mechanism exists. What I don’t agree with is the claim that this paper demonstrates ghrelin agonists or MK-677 reduce final adult height. That’s a much stronger conclusion than what was actually tested.If we’re going to be strict about evidence, then we should separate evidence of a biological mechanism from evidence of a real-world growth outcome. They’re not the same thing.

No one said you're denying basic mechanisms, you stated that they were lackluster in evidence of them existing. Which is far from general consensus, and what this study stated. "Even the authors describe the apoptosis/hypertrophy explanation as a hypothesis that requires further study" this is very oversimplified and dishonest, the apoptosis explanation was seen in another study which was referenced where increased cAMP production leaded to apoptosis of chondrocytes. I understand you might have confused this, but the authors weren't outputting uncertainty on these mechanisms, they proved they existed along with other papers in the references. The hypertrophy part was already proven, the only part which they were trying to understand was the broader picture of this whole mechanism of ghrelin and chondrocytes, which is why they were hypothesizing the explanation. Now, I don't know you, but you know this is basic biology, im sure you learn this in 8th grade, when cells undergoe apoptosis (cell death), they are dead. They don't work. When chondrocytes (growth plate cartilage cells) undergoe apoptosis, they will not grow, they will not replicate, they are dead. When they are in a catabolic environment which increased ghrelin creates, this leads to chondrocytes mass apoptosis which the paper referenced shows. No study proves ghrelin agonists even increase adult height, no study shows a decrease in adult height. What we are both going by is mechanistic speculation. However my evidence was shown and shows a real world growth outcome, which spoiler it wasn't growth it was cell death of growth plate cartilage. You vouching for something that has less backing than my explanation and basic biology is hypocritical and cherry picking. My conclusion is much stronger than yours and is a valid conclusion.

 

[woodyy]

Ghrelin agonists increase cAMP production --> This is linked with Chondrocyte apoptosis and acceleration of growth plate maturation.
Ghrelin acts on chondrocytes as a cell metabolic limiter, deletion of Ghrelin gene also didn't impair growth within rats majorly suggesting that the mechanisms
it triggers are likely irrelevant to chondrocyte proliferation.



paper

But mk-677 is used medically as lum-201 for height growth?

 

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

But mk-677 is used medically as lum-201 for height growth?

For people with GHD, not the general population with sufficient growth hormone levels. Sure Mk-677 has great medical use cases, because they increased Growth Hormone puts their chondrocytes in a anabolic environment. However for people who don't have GHD, they won't reap any benefit from the 1 to 2 iu increase in gh, as of why people take 10-12iu+, and instead when people take mk 677 they'll just put there chondrocytes in a more catabolic oriented environment, and will just have regulatory systems trying to compensate for the increase in gh.

 

[cc000]

Ghrelin agonists increase cAMP production --> This is linked with Chondrocyte apoptosis and acceleration of growth plate maturation.
Ghrelin acts on chondrocytes as a cell metabolic limiter, deletion of Ghrelin gene also didn't impair growth within rats majorly suggesting that the mechanisms
it triggers are likely irrelevant to chondrocyte proliferation.



paper

your pro hgh insted or do you think both are copes

 

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

your pro hgh insted or do you think both are copes

Me personally I think both are copes, ahmed88 is better at explaining why its likely cope if you check out his thread on why hgh is cope and the comments underneath the thread trying to debate him, he has a far better explanation on why its cope. Many people hate him despite ahmed giving valid reasoning and ppl typically just say hes retarded or brown to excuse not debating him, so don't let that attack his credibility.

 

[PSLgodBlackPerson]

Me personally I think both are copes, ahmed88 is better at explaining why its likely cope if you check out his thread on why hgh is cope and the comments underneath the thread trying to debate him, he has a far better explanation on why its cope. Many people hate him despite ahmed giving valid reasoning and ppl typically just say hes retarded or brown to excuse not debating him, so don't let that attack his credibility.

actually nvm I dont think its cope but I do believe ngas who vouch for 2 iu increases in gh are retarded and the necessary dosages would just push you to the higher end of your genetic potential not really surpassing it.