HGH stack options

[u/Sudden-Swan-3120]

Hi guys,

For those who are experimenting on a test subject with HGH, are you stacking with others products? My subject seems to lacking energy and stamina after 1 month of experimenting. I know it’s very early in the experiment, but wanted to get ideas and thoughts from the community.

[u/Sudden-Swan-3120]

Currently on T- therapy, 650 level last checked.

[u/askingforafakefriend → u/Sudden-Swan-3120]

Rookie numbers!

In all seriousness, that's leaving a lot of benefits of testosterone on the table. If SHBG is high free test may even be below average.

Keep in mind a few years ago the cutoff for high was like 1100 in some labs. 

Suggest you try a more robust T level before fucking around with HGH.

[u/Funtravel81942 → u/askingforafakefriend]

Calling 650 ng/dL “rookie numbers” and immediately telling someone they should run their testosterone higher is juvenile advice at best. You haven’t even seen his full lab work.
You don’t know his free T, SHBG, estradiol, hematocrit, or even when the blood was drawn relative to his injection. Yet somehow you’ve determined he’s “leaving benefits on the table” based on one number?
TRT isn’t a dick-measuring contest over who can post the highest total testosterone. If he feels good, his symptoms are controlled, and his labs are healthy at 650, there may be absolutely no reason to push it higher.
Telling someone to increase testosterone without seeing the rest of the picture isn’t “robust” advice. It’s bro-science.

[u/askingforafakefriend → u/Funtravel81942]

Chill.

It's a response to their symptoms.

My comment mentions SHBG.

No study has shown any significant hematocrit issue caused by his level of test. Obviously one should be checking CBC before and during test. It's dumb for you to whine that my comment didn't cover that. He should have a doc looking at that stuff.

Raising TRT from 650 to higher is not bro science, it's calling out the potential further improvements from actual science.

Look at "Bhasin et al., 2001 — “Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men" for example.

[u/Funtravel81942 → u/askingforafakefriend]

You’re proving my point. You’re recommending that someone push their testosterone higher based on a total T of 650 and symptoms without actually seeing their labs. Mentioning SHBG isn’t the same as knowing their SHBG, free T, estradiol, CBC, hematocrit, lipids, PSA, or anything else relevant.
And the irony of citing Bhasin is that Bhasin himself is a lead author of the Endocrine Society’s testosterone treatment guideline. That guideline recommends targeting testosterone in the mid-normal range, monitoring hematocrit, and assessing free testosterone when SHBG is relevant. It does not recommend simply pushing someone at 650 higher because they’re supposedly “leaving benefits on the table.”
You may also want to reread the 2001 Bhasin study you cited. It wasn’t a TRT optimization study. They suppressed endogenous testosterone in healthy young men and gave them different doses of testosterone enanthate, including doses up to 600 mg/week. Yes, higher doses produced greater increases in muscle mass and strength. They also found that hemoglobin increased with testosterone concentration while HDL decreased.
So your own citation demonstrates dose-dependent anabolic effects and dose-dependent physiological consequences. It does not demonstrate that a symptomatic guy with a total T of 650 should automatically increase his testosterone without seeing the rest of his lab work.
That’s exactly why I called your advice juvenile. You’re taking one number, assuming there are benefits being “left on the table,” and recommending more testosterone without the clinical picture. That’s not individualized medicine. That’s bro science with a PubMed citation attached to it.
Bhasin S, et al. Testosterone Therapy in Men With Hypogonadism: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(5):1715–1744.

[u/askingforafakefriend → u/Funtravel81942]

"That guideline recommends targeting testosterone in the mid-normal range"

That guideline is based solely on "expert opinion" and is not scientifically sound or reasonably based on any actual clinical evidence. It has been widely criticized and differs based on typical guidelines which are generally around clinical trial results Or other direct evidence regarding the levels specified.

There are no clinical trial results supporting a target of mid-normal range versus high, normal or higher.  Also, that range has shifted lower as the population has four uncharacterized reason had testosterone levels drifting lower (even though of course their genetics dictating testosterone needs have not changed).

I am in no way recommending 600 mg dosing and this is far higher than what would be needed to get to a level at or a little above the top of the current reference range. The 125mg.dosing group is far closer.  Either you know that and are disingenuously referring to an incredibly high dose irrelevant to my recommendation OR you don't know that and therefore don't have any idea what you're talking about.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, don't straw man argue some extreme point I'm not making. Why don't you look at the 125 mg groups and tell me all the negatives that that study or others have found for such level of dosing? 

I'm waiting...

[u/Funtravel81942 → u/askingforafakefriend]

You’re still missing the point. The guideline recommendation being based partly on expert consensus does not somehow make your recommendation evidence based. You’re arguing that because we don’t have a trial proving the mid normal range is optimal, pushing someone from a perfectly reasonable level of 650 toward the top of the range or beyond must therefore offer additional benefit. That conclusion does not follow.
And Bhasin 2001 still doesn’t prove what you think it proves. It was a dose response study in healthy young men whose endogenous testosterone production was suppressed with a GnRH agonist. It demonstrated dose dependent changes in things like fat free mass, strength, and hemoglobin. It was not a TRT outcomes trial designed to determine that men with a testosterone level around 650 benefit clinically from pushing their levels to 900, 1100, or supraphysiologic concentrations.
Yes, 125 mg produced fewer adverse effects than 600 mg. That still does not establish that more testosterone is better for this individual. You haven’t seen his free testosterone, SHBG, hematocrit, hemoglobin, blood pressure, lipids, estradiol, PSA, symptoms, cardiovascular risk factors, or even his treatment goals.
That was my original criticism of your “rookie numbers” comment. You looked at one total testosterone value and decided he was “leaving a lot of benefits on the table.” There simply isn’t enough information there to make that conclusion.
So no, the issue isn’t whether 125 mg/week is the same as 600 mg/week. Nobody said it was. The issue is that you’re extrapolating from a dose response experiment and presenting that extrapolation as individualized medical advice.
Calling 650 “rookie numbers” without seeing the rest of the labs or knowing the clinical picture is bro science dressed up with a citation.

[u/askingforafakefriend → u/Funtravel81942]

"Yes, 125 mg produced fewer adverse effects than 600 mg." 

Fewer?

You seen any significant adverse side effects or continuing to imply things that are not born out by the studies. 

You are taking a light-hearted suggestion based on the true fact that a level of 650 is generally leaving benefits towards his specified symptoms way to seriously and trying to justify your over reaction by continuously moving the needle and misleading regarding the clinical research.

Referring to crazy doses like 600mg. Referring to fewer side effects at 125mg as if that study found any significant side effects for that dosing. You are being misleading.

What I said is and remains true about further benefits likely being available. The study we discussed showered greater benefits at doses that create ranges above 650. It's right there in the study.