HGH intramuscular

blue524432 · 02-19-2008, 02:19 PM

Just read an article that was out of Musc. Development that said people are starting to inject HGH IM rather than subcutaneously produced higher blood levels of the hormone for a longer time. The low dose IM was just as effective as the high dose sc. They come to the conclusion that GH inj. into the muscle rather than the skin would be more efficient and better and you could use lower doses. What do you all think of this? I have never heard of this.

**lil_big_junior** · 02-19-2008, 09:05 PM

I'm sure Rocco & Zomb1 would like to hear this

**mindstar** · 02-19-2008, 10:14 PM

i nkow that you can pin IGF im for spot growth, and since part of what GH does is raise IGF levels, this makes intuitive sense to a guy with no chemistry background....lol

blue524432 · 02-19-2008, 10:35 PM

They said this wasn't for spot growth. It was for the overall body and it would work much better than subc.

SVTMuscle · 02-19-2008, 11:50 PM

Yeah alot of people say IM is able to keeping the hormones up longer, but there are also those who say SubQ is just as good...you just gotta find out for yourself I suppose. When I used just Subq, I noticed alot of spot reduction

**mindstar** · 02-20-2008, 12:48 AM

IGF injected IM can bring abuot overall growth as well, but it focusses on the site and whatever is not taken up by receptors circulates and can grow things elsewhere.

Any protocol which allows less GH to be used though is going to be instantly popular given how expensive GH is. I wonder if that might bias opinions?

blue524432 · 02-20-2008, 08:10 AM

From what the study says the low dose in the muscle is just as effective as the high dose sc. It is on p. 110 and is a study from the European Journal Endocrinology.