This has been proven repeatedly. GH “resistance” develops. Pulsatile exposure, which is…

Do AIDS patients on 6mg of serostim get this supposed “GH resistance?” Where do you come up with this stuff?

What do you mean it doesn’t “matter” that they downregulate? Of course it matters, or there would have been no purpose for Egrifta to be developed and sold at a higher price than Serostim / rHGH, which was already widely available and used by HIV patients. The advantage was fat deposits could be reduced without inducing the same side effects as the dose level of rHGH needed to achieve the same degree of lipolysis. Maintaining pulsatile release is the key difference. It keeps adipose GH sensitive, while rHGH dulls it, requiring a much larger dose to overcome the resistance that develops. So you can get the same amount of fat loss with rHGH, but the dose needed means the rate of side effects (carpal, water retention, acromegaly risk long term) is much higher than the dose of Tesa used for the same degree of lipolysis

[file]

[file]

[file]

[file]

[file]

[file]

Point taken about down regulation, even tho I think it’s overstated. Side effects aren’t really a concern when using GH for lipolysis bc it only takes a couple IUs at a time to maximize the pathway. Maintaining a pulsatile release I can see as a minor advantage of secretagogues, but you can also just dose GH in a pulsatile fashion

One of those papers essentially does what you suggest, and injects rHGH repeatedly in small doses to simulate pulses, and lipolysis was 15% greater than constant exposure from a single large dose. (This was before Tesa was invented, and they showed one cause of obesity was loss of GH pulsatile patterns). Ultimately over time, lipolysis overall with pulses of GH was double the amount it was with continuous exposure. (Using the same amount of total growth hormone). TLDR so you don’t have to have your eyes fall out of your head reading all the above, while pulsatile release like Tesa is best (maybe “most efficient” is a better way to put it) for fat loss / lipolysis, continuous exposure like rHGH was much better for increasing lean mass (because it raises IGF-1 more than pulsatile releases of GH).

I appreciate you explaining all this despite my slightly hostile reaction off the bat

Love this interaction between you two gents. Lots learned on my end as well.

It’s all good bro, I appreciate you asking for the evidence with a please. That almost never happens, lol. Costs me a small fortune to get access to all those journals, and I love an excuse to share with someone who’s intellectually curious.