LTKPN: Hi Ellis and others,
LTKPN: I'm male, 5' 10" (1.70 mts.) tall and I weigh 110 lbs. (50 kgs.) I have been injecting HGH daily, first 0.6 IU, then down to 0.5 IU. Because of my small size, I figured 0.6 IU HGH would amount to close to what many 180 cm+ guys are taking on a IU/kg basis.
At first, I hoped it would do a lot for me. I am now wondering whether all I have read about it on this newsgroup or elsewhere is grossly exagerated (pardon me Ellis, I know you speak with a 100% good faith, but I think you are sometime too enthusiastic to be objective).
Michael Meadows: The results you have read about here are from people taking 3 to 4 times the dose you are taking. I hope you aren't expecting to see the same results when taking such a minimal dose.
LTKPN: In my case, I already looked much younger at age 40 when I started
and had no bodyfat to lose. So, I didn't see any improvement in
that area, except for some muscle gain. I also liked the fact that
my skin was better hydrated.
LTKPN: However, what I didn't like is the fact that I was growing more body
hair in areas such as my chest, knees and thighs which had previously been hairless.
LTKPN: Although I don't expect to get the same results some of you on 2-3
iu's/day are getting, I don't think I will grow less extra body hair
if I increase my dose further. Of course, there's nothing unhealthy
about being a hairy guy. I just happen not to like it and neither
does my wife.
LTKPN: It's likely that a few years down the road, or perhaps even earlier, I will weigh again the side effect of increased body hair against expected benefits I would get from HGH use. However, I dont't have much to gain at this point in the areas of bodyfat or wrinkles.
LTKPN: I've maintained a young-looking body through 25 years of feeding on vegetables, fruits, some beans and some yogurt. I'm also paying a price for that, as I might have grown taller, as have my 3 younger brothers, had I not started on such a restrictive (and low protein) diet at the age of 16. On the other hand, people who know us agree that I look the youngest of the pack.
LTKPN: I did a medline search and found an abstract of a study in the Netherlands in which it was observed that pituitary-deficient men grow more sexual hair when on HGH.
Michael: In scientific research, a study needs to be confirmed by several other studies before it is considered meaningful. And a study of pituitary deficient men may have no applicability to men or women with normal pituitaries. Testosterone causes hair growth.
LTKPN: Being a research scientist (applied mathematics/numerical climate
modeling) myself, let me also comment on your point about one scientific study having to be confirmed by other studies.
The whole point of going through the peer-review process before publishing
one's results in a reputable journal is to make sure the results one
is getting are credible, even if no other researchers have gotten the
same results before. Science would advance at a snail's pace if we
scientists concentrated most of our efforts on verifying other
scientists' results rather than building up on those efforts.
LTKPN: That having been said, of course medicine is not like mathematics, and the more medical studies confirm a first medical study, the more credible that first study is.
LTKPN: Another thing that got me to wonder is that my IGF-1 did not go up.
It was at 125 at baseline and still was after 3 months of injecting
0.6 IU daily.
Michael: It would be surprising if your IGF-1 did go up with such a small dose.
LTKPN: I also got the impression that my nose has grown larger
and I don't particularly like that.
Michael: Your nose and ears continue to grow throughout your entire life.
LTKPN: I have now stopped my injections after running out of product and am
wondering whether to place another order. On the one hand, I don't
want to age normally. On the other, I have aged at a below average
rate until age 40, in spite of very low IGF-1.
I am also concerned by the studies that show that dwarf mice which
have their HGH receptors knocked out live longer than normal mice
and by the other studies that establish that animals placed on long
term calorie restriction have lower than average IGF-1 (so, since
calorie restriction is known to be good, having a low IGF-1
shouldn't necessarily be bad). I think that the latter is what
happened to me. I have been on a mostly vegan diet since the age of
16 and look as though I had been on calorie restriction since. As a
result, the body learns to slow everything down starting with
metabolism, then IGF-1 production and protein synthesis. Although
that sounds bad, the end result is a lower than average rate of
aging (just my theory).
Ellis: [If you have eaten mostly VEGETABLES and FRUITS so your blood glucose has been held DOWN, THEN I think it is entirely
possible that your rate of "aging" has been slowed, ie, your
PANCREAS is working VERY WELL.
The PANCREAS, in my opinion, is the single organ that mosts affects
the SPEED of AGING because it controls both insulin, and also has
some somatostatin, which blocks growth hormone. I am not certain
this is so but I think: if insulin production is low, somatostatin
release by pancreas is also low, because GH is lower when insulin
is high (according to a graph in "Grow Young With HGH") so growth
hormone release is not blocked when insulin release is low.
HOWEVER, a VEGAN diet also includes POTATOES and RICE and BEANS
and CORN and SPAGHETTI and BREADs, and SWEETS, and SUGAR... and
all of these really stimulate the pancreas to release insulin, so
if you have eaten a lot of these, then your pancreas is not
necessarily in good shape. You can find out the state of your
pancreas, roughly, by taking a Glucose Tolerance Test, or quickly
and cheaply, my "Poor Man's Glucose Tolerance Test" which only
requires you to drink a very large (400 ml) glass of Orange Juice...
then test yourself with a home glucose meter... if your glucose levels
stay below 100, or 105 after 30 minutes... then "according to Ellis"
your pancreas is VERY YOUNG... if your glucose levels loop up then
down, then your pancreas is like mine, ie, it is like an airplane
with 4 motors that has lost one motor... that is where I am, myself.
- Ellis]
LTKPN: No, I haven't eaten bread, pasta, cereals, cake, pie,
fries, etc... in the last 25 years although I still get about 85% of
my calories from carbohydrates (fruits, beans and vegetables).
Ellis: Wow! DON'T GO AWAY! You are one of the few persons we will ever find who has actually been on a calorie restricted diet WITH LOW GLUCOSE LEVELS for nearly 25 years, ie, since age 16 !!! Now... the only thing you need to do is make certain you are getting enough protein, which can be from soy, or peanuts, etc., since you do not eat meat, eggs, or milk products.
LTKPN: I am also worried for you Ellis. Are you sure that you don't owe
the fact that you can't get your fasting blood glucose level below
90 without injecting insulin before each meal to your continued use
of large doses of HGH (ie. 2-3 IUs)? You know it can impair insulin
sensitivity. I hope it didn't put you in that prediabetic state you
tell us you now are in.
Michael: Ellis has clearly stated that he treats himself AS IF he is pre-diabetic, to avoid becoming pre-diabetic.
Ellis: [Thank you, Michael. I am NOT a pre-diabetic as defined by the ADA, ie, I do not get impaired fasting blood glucose readings (ie, about 115 to 125) in the morning... and I don't see any significance to the fact that I am unable to get fasting blood glucose levels below 90... Fasting glucose levels, by definition, are not taken with insulin... so I am sure I could get them lower, if I took a shot of insulin. (And by the way... I HAVE gotten some test results below 85, after I wrote that I couldn't...)
I am no where CLOSE to having insulin resistance. When I check my fasting
INSULIN in laboratory blood tests, I have always gotten EXTREMELY low
levels of insulin, ie, "like an athlete" which is at the extreme
BOTTOM of the lab range, sometimes even below the extreme, ie, below 3.
So... No, I haven't impaired my insulin sensitivity. On the contrary, since
I have begun my own severely restricted carbohydrate way of eating
about 3 years ago, I have reported on Rejuvenation that my INSULIN
levels were "like an athlete", below 3 (lab range is 3 to 25... insulin
resistance starts about 10 and above, 25 being very severe.) - Ellis]
LTKPN: I think Ellis is the one who started using the word "pre-diabetic" to
describe the state he is in with a less than optimally functioning
pancreas (some burned out beta cells).
Ellis: I don't know if I am the first, but maybe I am the first to write about it. After studying diabetes and anti-aging therapies, I realized that Diabetes is The Enemy we have to beat if we want to live a long healthy life... And an understanding of glucose levels, and the glucose meter, made me realize without any doubt in MY mind that in a sense we are ALL "On The Road To Diabetes"... So I began to think of myself as having "Diabetes Type III" which would be before Type II, since Type I is the extreme worse.
The best way not to get to Type I is not to get to Type II... and the best way not to get to Type II is to start to think of myself as a diabetic NOW, and to eat as if I want to keep diabetes from advancing. That way, as Dr. Richard Bernstein has demonstrated, is to keep blood sugar levels under control.
What I call "under control" is much more strict than what most diabetes doctors, or the American Diabetes Association recommend for diabetes patients. Maybe they are more lenient because it is frustrating if you set a goal for your patients and all your patients cannot reach that goal, because they are DIABETIC! So they are happy if their patients stay under 180... HbA1c 7.0 or less, and they are REALLY happy with 6.0!
But I am relatively HEALTHY, and I want to stay this way... so I am not happy unless I keep blood sugar under 105, which means I am unhappy with 120's.
But... 120's are my ceiling. I would be satisfied with 120's I would surely be getting 140's sometimes, and I'm not. I repeat: keep your blood glucose levels between 70 and 105, "by hook or by crook". It doesn't matter how you do it, just do it! Take metformin, or insulin, or do exercise, or eat correctly, or all of the above... just keep your glucose levels low! (but NOT hypoglycemic, of course.)
I'm happy to learn that Ellis' sub-optimal pancreas does not go and hand in hand with insulin resistance. Fortunately for Ellis, not producing enough insulin is easy to fix with insulin injections.
Ellis: You are misinterpreting what my 3.0 insulin blood test result means. It means it is EXCELLENT... You always have a minimum amount of insulin in your blood, because your liver regulates blood glucose, so it might release some glucose, and insulin is necessary for it to be used by your body's cells. But if my blood insulin level is at the extreme of the low end, that means my pancreas is not being asked to produce more insulin BECAUSE MY BLOOD GLUCOSE LEVEL is not demanding it.
So it is not that I am not producing "enough" insulin, it is that I am not FORCING my pancreas to produce any more insulin than that... that means I am burning out my pancreas as slowly as I can, it might still be working well when I am 99 years old, instead of having burned out about age 70 or 80, which would be the maximum that I should expect, given that both my parents were diabetics Type II by age 65.
Insulin resistance on the other hand is a much harder problem to tackle. I'm also aware that Ellis injects insulin mostly to preserve his pancreas' ability to produce insulin in the future, not because it can't produce it at this point.
Thank you for clarifying the role of HGH in the area of diabetes and insulin resistance. Your comment allays my concern.
Michael: Some doctors have been concerned about giving HGH to diabetics. Previous studies, including Dr. Rudman's study using large doses of HGH, showed that HGH had caused increased insulin resistance in patients, so diabetics saw an increase in blood glucose levels. Dr. Bengtsson, an endocrinologist in Sweden, showed similar results in his 6 week study. Dr. Bengtsson's study had first showed that HGH caused increased insulin resistance. However, after 6 months of HGH therapy his patient's insulin sensitivity returned to where it had been before the therapy. This 6 month study showed that HGH did not increase the patient's blood glucose or make the patient diabetic.
Greg Fahy, Ph.D., of the Naval Medical Research Institute has stated that he
may have discovered a method to possibly cure adult-onset diabetes using
HGH. He has stated that his own experiments have shown that human growth
hormone is very beneficial for diabetes.
Ellis: I will bet that Greg Fahy, Ph.D, is mistaken, and that growth hormone will not "cure" adult onset diabetes, because to "cure" diabetes you must replace burned out beta cells, ie, rejuvenate the pancreas. As far as I can tell, a burned out beta cell will not start to work again (ie, produce insulin) because you take growth hormone. If it did, after nearly six years of GH at a good dose every day, I would be having a much better response (flat) after I eat spaghetti, and I am not getting it.
However, I am sure that growth hormone would be A GOOD HORMONE for diabetics to take, for all the OTHER benefits it would give them which would improve their health, as it does benefit to everybody else (except ltpk) .
LTKPN: Don't take me wrong. I'm not trying to convince anybody that HGH is
bad, but I'm trying to be objective and I get the feeling that too
many people have come to think of HGH as the quick fix that will
keep them young forever.
Michael: HGH is not "a quick fix." It is the missing key to staying young. It will do little good without a proper diet, exercise, stress management, etc.
Ellis: Actually, I think it IS "a quick fix..." Even if you don't do proper diet, exercise, and stress management, HGH will benefit you. Of course you are throwing away money by working against the current if you do NOT eat correctly and do NOT do exercise, and I'm not advocating that...
But I'm sure injectible growth hormone would be of benefit to somebody in a wheel chair, who cannot do exercise, and it would help somebody who is obese and eating a high carb diet... It helped ME for three years, until the light finally lit up in my brain and I finally began to eat correctly to keep my glucose levels low (thanks to the glucose meter, which showed me without any doubt that I was eating incorrectly.)
Maybe it bothers some people for me to say HGH is a "quick fix" but don't misinterpret what I am saying. I am not advocating that you shouldn't eat correctly or do exercise... but the fact is that maybe 99% of the population of the world eats terribly and does NOT do exercise... so let's not dream of an ideal setting... I'm sure GH would be very beneficial for ANYBODY who does NOT eat correctly or do exercise.... just take it, every day, every day... don't miss a day... But as I point out below, I also agree with Michael... if you damage your pancreas and your kidneys, growth hormone can't be expected to help you.
LTKPN: I think that it isn't the case and that even Ellis agrees that blood sugar control is more important than IGF-1 levels.
Ellis: Keeping glucose levels under control is "MORE IMPORTANT" as a part of an anti-aging program... YES, because it determines the
long-range health of the PANCREAS, which determines the long range
health of both the CIRCULATORY SYSTEM and the KIDNEYS... and the
KIDNEYS determine the cleanliness of the blood supply AND ALSO the
level of RED BLOOD CELLS in the blood supply, which runs through the
CIRCULATORY SYSTEM and carries OXYGEN to every single cell in our
body.
So, if the KIDNEYS and the CIRCULATORY SYSTEM are in BAD SHAPE, due to pre-diabetes or diabetes, the entire body "ages faster" because of the dirty blood supply, and because of the low supply of red blood cells carrying oxygen. And all this damage begins with high blood glucose levels... This is why keeping glucose levels under control is the single most
important anti-aging therapy.
BUT... of all of the anti-aging hormones, growth hormone is without
any doubt the single most dramatic in its effects, and benefits. If
we have an orchestra of hormones, then growth hormone is the master of
the orchestra, the director... and testosterone, insulin, and EPO, are
all extremely important sections, violins, wind instruments, piano, etc.
- Ellis]
LTKPN: So, I'm just confused and am simply wondering whether I should
continue using HGH in spite of the increased body hair and perceived
larger nose, hoping for further benefits down the road. Please
advise. Thank you.
Ellis: The decision is up to you. But let's just take a look at what are your objections: increased body hair... this is entirely possible, and it is usually thought of as a BENEFIT... if you don't LIKE increased body hair, you might like being bald or you might like having thin
nails, and that is entirely your right to not like increased body hair. But maybe you should SHAVE IT OFF and not give up the benefits that you do like from injecting growth hormone.
Another objection is that your IGF-1 has not increased. As Michael points out, perhaps your dose is too low to budge that meter. Also, read Dr.
Cranton's comments about IGF-1 test results, and don't put
all your faith on IGF-1 test results.
http://www.rajeun.net/cranton.html
I have had low test results myself, and when I do, I take the test over
because I know it is a possible but not a valid result. Since you mention
at least two benefits when you took growth hormone ("more muscle," and
"hydrated skin," which would mean "fewer wrinkles" if you were older)
we know you have gotten some reactions to the growth hormone which you
used, so you know it isn't water. It made your hair grow and your skin
get more humidified, so that means the circulatory system is building
up as it should have, and that can only be the case if growth hormone
was working. IGF-1 is not growth hormone, it is only the sign that
growth hormone ordered the liver to send out the army of repair men. If
you don't see the repair men, but you see the repairs, don't worry about
the repair men: they are doing their job.
The objection that really gets me is your perception that your NOSE
has grown!!! I have NEVER heard that objection before. For how long
have you been taking growth hormone? Your DOSE is so low that I can't
imagine a BAD SIDE EFFECT, but you say you think your nose has grown...
Maybe... but I DOUBT IT... I really do... Maybe what you really see is
a CHANGE in your face, which is entirely possible... many people report a
change in their face, but they are usually VERY HAPPY. However, you are
not. Has anybody ELSE told you that your NOSE seems to have grown ?
LTKPN: I'm the only one who thinks it looks larger, and the perceived change is only minimal. I also happen to be very self critical. What probably happened is that the HGH helped me put on some weight and that resulted in a fuller face (less sunken cheeks) with some "baby fat". As a result, the nose probably
increased a little bit in volume although the change is not likely due
to bone or cartilage proliferation. It's a change I can live with, as
I look better overall.
Ellis: Well, that sure makes me happier, to know that you also think you LOOK better! What else do you want? A million dollars? So... why are you stop taking growth hormone? Suppose it cost 1 cent per iu, would you stop taking it? Would you decide to stop taking it because you look better overall, or would you stop taking it because you liked that your skin looks better? Which one is it?
My suggestion is that you continue to take growth hormone... in fact,
now you could increase your dose to at least 1 iu per day... but if you
don't, at least keep it in the back of your mind as a possible hormone
to use later on in your life. You are only 40 years old... that is still
not so old... There are many baseball and football players that are
still in their 40's, so you might still be in the best shape of your life...
But statistics say that you will soon start the slide down the hill.
This is a bad time for you to stop taking growth hormone. On the other
hand, I started at age 52, nearly 53... and I'm pretty happy with my
results, so it isn't the end of the world if you stop using HGH "for
now," as you wrote in the Subject. But it is better to not get a
damage than to repair the damage, so in principle, I would be better
off today if I had started at age 40 than as I did, at age 52.
Continue to eat correctly and test your blood glucose often so that
you know your glucose levels are under control... do some exercise...
walk, ride bicycle, run, some weight lifting, etc... take your list of
vitamins and supplements every day... take blood tests to track your
PSA, testosterone, and cholesterol, and you have a pretty good anti-aging
program there, without growth hormone, which will serve you for the moment...
But keep on looking at the mirror... and when you see your skin getting
loose, and wrinkles appear on your face and your hands, and you feel you
are not so young anymore... at that point, you might remember that growth
hormone exists and that you can reverse these signs of aging with growth
hormone, and I should say, only with growth hormone. This might happen
when you are about 50's. The important thing is: don't leave this
experience with a bad impression of growth hormone because then it will
block you when you will really need it, when you will be 60 or 70 years
old.
As for my exhuberant enthusiasm in favor of growth hormone... it is only
for me... I am happy for me... I tell you what I do, but I don't tell you
to do it. I am going to be 59 years old, then 60 years old 12 months
later. It is incredible that I will be 60 years old and I think I will
still be in amazing physical health, and pretty good looks.... about an
8... up from about a 6... AT AGE 58, that's not so bad! Of course I am
exhuberantly enthusiastic about being PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY YOUNG at
age 58! I think that's something worth being exhuberant about.
I don't know if I am aging, but if so, I am aging very, very slowly. The
years pass by and I look at myself in the mirror, and I don't see any
change, except I look better. In my own eyes, I look BETTER at age 58
than I ever did before in my life... THAT IS WHY I am exhuberant and
enthusiastic about growth hormone. I also sell it, legally, so maybe that
influences my opinion, but I will tell you that I never tell people what
to do, I tell them what I do, and my customers also tell me their experiences
and they are almost uniformly enthusiastic also.
I bumped into somebody who I had not seen in about 15 years... He had
definitely aged, which is to be expected... in my eyes, (which is a pretty
critical eye,) he has many more wrinkles, the skin on his face is flabbier,
he has less hair and... he looks 15 years older... but he said without me
asking him to comment, that I look better than I did before... and in my eyes,
that is correct. I am certain I look better than June, 1998, when I was 52
years, nearly 53 years old, and I was very skinny, and wrinkled.
Now, I have more muscle, I have fewer wrinkles, I have the same amount of
hair, (I don't have many grey hairs, but I have a few more than at age 52)
I have as much or more energy, I work more, I write more, and I haven't been
knocked out by a cold in more than 5 years... that is pretty amazing... But
it is not due to growth hormone alone... It is due to everything I do, my
whole anti-aging program, which I designed based on the principles I learned
as an insurance agent, following the principles of Risk Management. It is
due to all the hormones I take, because they are all important, like players
of a team: growth hormone... insulin... EPO... testosterone... DHEA....
melatonin... Wow! I can hear the crowd roar as they come out onto the
field and are presented one by one. Listen to the crowd cheer their heros!
These are my heros. They are keeping me HEALTHY, and there is NOTHING else
as valuable as GOOD HEALTH.
So... Please stay subscribed to Rejuvenation... take your decision
whatever it is, but keep on learning and keep on taking healthy choices
for your body. - Ellis]
LTKPN: First I want to thank you for having taken the time to write a lengthy reply to my post. You can be assured that I will not unsubscribe from Rejuvenation. I have learned so much from you and the other subscribers. Thanks to the incredible wealth of information provided by Ellis, I'm
now thinking that EPO can do more for me than HGH at this point and I have e-mailed Ellis privately to inquire about its purchase.
Ellis: Good, I'm glad you're staying subscribed, and I'm glad that you think you have learned a lot! My passion is to teach and help people to keep well... I try to do this by setting a good example, so I try to practice what I preach. EPO (ie, keeping your red blood cell count at a healthy level) goes hand in hand with growth hormone and all the other anti-aging therapies. Don't drop one to take the other, except for budgetary reasons. I will definitely be glad to help you to get EPO and growth hormone legally. I suppose I am "the Father" of EPO use for healthy persons, and also "the Father" of insulin use for healthy persons, since I tried both with the unanimous opposition of every doctor I know (even my friends) and now I am really convinced of the benefit of both of them, so I won't stop using them myself... so it gives me a lot of pleasure to help you with this, too.
LTKPN: Thanks to the advice you provided, I monitor my blood glucose level regularly and have made metformin a part of my antiaging program.
Why I Stopped Taking HGH http://www.rajeun.net/whyIstoppedHGH.html
I am a distributor of Serono de Mexico, and Humatrope by Eli Lilly, and other excellent brands of growth growth hormone in Mexico. If you come to Mexico I will help you to get a legal prescription and you can buy Humatrope, Saizen, or Norditropin at excellent prices. If you are not coming to Mexico, I can help you to buy growth hormone legally in the United States. See my page, and write to me:
