Teriparatide Source

[uzmah5]

I’m looking for a Teriparatide source preferably in Australia. If the source is international that’s fine as well, any help is greatly appreciated.

 

[LevButlerov]

I’m looking for a Teriparatide source preferably in Australia. If the source is international that’s fine as well, any help is greatly appreciated.

welcome to the EVO family @uzmah5
I moved your thread to EVO Aussie sub, check our q4 approved domestic AU suppliers
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/top-trusted-aussie-vendors-2025-q4.107247/

I noticed you were looking for cardarine gw as well?
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/looking-for-cardarine-source-in-australia.107670

you want to cycle cardarine and tirzepatide or you mean teriparatide? tell us more

 

[Sheshredz]

@RRRaus has trizep and kits too!

 

[codezz]

@Wolfenstein is ur man brother

 

[Allupfromhere]

If @Wolfenstein dont have it then it prob isnt worth having lol

 

[Don Kong]

is Wolf that good lol

 

[Allupfromhere]

is Wolf that good lol

The king of peps brother

 

[barry3264]

Guys he’s not looking for tirzepatide the GLP-1. He’s looking for teriparatide which is a PTH analog used for osteoporosis and building bone mass. I personally am also looking for a source of abaloparatide, which is a compound in the same class.

 

[LevButlerov]

Guys he’s not looking for tirzepatide the GLP-1. He’s looking for teriparatide which is a PTH analog used for osteoporosis and building bone mass. I personally am also looking for a source of abaloparatide, which is a compound in the same class.

Yes we figured that out but it wasn't clear at first.
but why does he need osteoporosis teriparatide for? real question

 

[barry3264]

Yes we figured that out but it wasn't clear at first.
but why does he need osteoporosis teriparatide for? real question

Not sure but teriparatide is different to other osteoporosis drugs in the sense that instead of reducing/slowing down bone mass loss, it actually builds bone mass. He could be using it as a preventative/anti-ageing thing or for other applications such as fracture healing

 

[LevButlerov]

Not sure but teriparatide is different to other osteoporosis drugs in the sense that instead of reducing/slowing down bone mass loss, it actually builds bone mass. He could be using it as a preventative/anti-ageing thing or for other applications such as fracture healing

what do you need it for fractures? @barry3264 and have you explored peptide alternatives

 

[barry3264]

what do you need it for fractures? @barry3264 and have you explored peptide alternatives

Teriparatide is a peptide my friend. There is no other real accessible + effective compound available for bone health and longevity apart from teriparatide and its cousin abaloparatide apart from HGH and IGF-1 which have a host of undesirable side effects that you would be aware of and are largely anti-longevity.

 

[LevButlerov]

Teriparatide is a peptide my friend. There is no other real accessible + effective compound available for bone health and longevity apart from teriparatide and its cousin abaloparatide apart from HGH and IGF-1 which have a host of undesirable side effects that you would be aware of and are largely anti-longevity.

You're right I meant easy to get peptides @barry3264 what longevity sides you believe hgh hurts?

 

[barry3264]

You're right I meant easy to get peptides @barry3264 what longevity sides you believe hgh hurts?

The main ones are blood sugar/insulin resistance and cancer risk. Secondary concerns include blood pressure and its downstream effects due to sodium and fluid retention. HGH also hypertrophies all tissues in the body (with some exceptions such as the brain) leading to organomegaly. In the context of bodybuilders, cardiomegaly (enlarged heart) is the most concerning and quite common due to the cocktail of HGH and anabolics, both of which are linked to heart hypertrophy and subsequent heart failure. It is important to know that many of these processes are interlinked and potentiate each other (eg. high blood sugar can worsen hypertension due to higher blood viscosity while hypertension can accelerate the damage to blood vessels done by high blood sugar).

There is a rare form of dwarfism known as Laron dwarfism where patients are born with defective HGH receptors. As a result, they are unable to convert HGH into IGF-1, resulting in their short stature as the anabolic effects of HGH are largely moderated by IGF-1 as you would know. Interestingly, this mutation leads to them having longer life expectancies compared to the general population. Notably, diabetes is essentially non-existent amongst these individuals whilst rates of cancer are very low.

 

[CypherOCE]

is Wolf that good lol

The absolute best. Peptide king.

 

[LevButlerov]

The main ones are blood sugar/insulin resistance and cancer risk. Secondary concerns include blood pressure and its downstream effects due to sodium and fluid retention. HGH also hypertrophies all tissues in the body (with some exceptions such as the brain) leading to organomegaly. In the context of bodybuilders, cardiomegaly (enlarged heart) is the most concerning and quite common due to the cocktail of HGH and anabolics, both of which are linked to heart hypertrophy and subsequent heart failure. It is important to know that many of these processes are interlinked and potentiate each other (eg. high blood sugar can worsen hypertension due to higher blood viscosity while hypertension can accelerate the damage to blood vessels done by high blood sugar).

There is a rare form of dwarfism known as Laron dwarfism where patients are born with defective HGH receptors. As a result, they are unable to convert HGH into IGF-1, resulting in their short stature as the anabolic effects of HGH are largely moderated by IGF-1 as you would know. Interestingly, this mutation leads to them having longer life expectancies compared to the general population. Notably, diabetes is essentially non-existent amongst these individuals whilst rates of cancer are very low.

You are lumping in acromegaly and high dose abuse, with low dose GH used for most cycles or TRT, and those are not the same thing at all because in real adults, with conservative dosing, hgh improves lean mass, reduces visceral fat, improves lipids and even heart function instead of causing the organ blow up you are describing, while edema and glucose issues are usually mild and solved by starting very low and pyramiding based on IGF1 and symptoms.
In bodybuilders smashing high growth hormone on top of heavy anabolics your cardiomegaly and insulin resistance concern is fair, but it does not logically follow that 1-2 IUs is automatically bad for longevity when the clinical data mostly shows better function and risk markers, not worse. @barry3264 So, yes I'll agree with you 20 IUs of hgh is bad! but 1-3 IUs is normal imo.

On the cancer and Laron point you are also overreaching because Laron people are an extreme genetic model with almost 0 IGF1 who are very short, often obese and have roughly normal lifespan for their families, not some abnormal long life as you say.
They mainly prove the pathway matters but not that driving IGF1 that low in normal adults is smart!
imo if you read the literature, and I have, large human datasets actually find an IGF1 curve where both very low and very high levels carry higher mortality and the best survival sits in the middle, which is exactly what careful HGH use tries to hit rather than the extremes you are focused on.

@BeMe @HarleyGuy @s.gentz
@Allupfromhere @Pigsy @Dreamer @Freki @R.AP
@waggat @Yuri @rizzlekdizzle @Grumpy
@toddthelineman

 

[Freki]

There is a rare form of dwarfism known as Laron dwarfism where patients are born with defective HGH receptors. As a result, they are unable to convert HGH into IGF-1, resulting in their short stature as the anabolic effects of HGH are largely moderated by IGF-1 as you would know. Interestingly, this mutation leads to them having longer life expectancies compared to the general population.

Laron dwarfism is treated with igf-1 , doesn't that blow your whole reference to it apart?

 

[Dreamer]

The main ones are blood sugar/insulin resistance and cancer risk. Secondary concerns include blood pressure and its downstream effects due to sodium and fluid retention. HGH also hypertrophies all tissues in the body (with some exceptions such as the brain) leading to organomegaly. In the context of bodybuilders, cardiomegaly (enlarged heart) is the most concerning and quite common due to the cocktail of HGH and anabolics, both of which are linked to heart hypertrophy and subsequent heart failure. It is important to know that many of these processes are interlinked and potentiate each other (eg. high blood sugar can worsen hypertension due to higher blood viscosity while hypertension can accelerate the damage to blood vessels done by high blood sugar).

There is a rare form of dwarfism known as Laron dwarfism where patients are born with defective HGH receptors. As a result, they are unable to convert HGH into IGF-1, resulting in their short stature as the anabolic effects of HGH are largely moderated by IGF-1 as you would know. Interestingly, this mutation leads to them having longer life expectancies compared to the general population. Notably, diabetes is essentially non-existent amongst these individuals whilst rates of cancer are very low.

My blood sugar routinely runs 3.8 to 4.5 while on GH.

 

[HarleyGuy]

You are lumping in acromegaly and high dose abuse, with low dose GH used for most cycles or TRT, and those are not the same thing at all because in real adults, with conservative dosing, hgh improves lean mass, reduces visceral fat, improves lipids and even heart function instead of causing the organ blow up you are describing, while edema and glucose issues are usually mild and solved by starting very low and pyramiding based on IGF1 and symptoms.
In bodybuilders smashing high growth hormone on top of heavy anabolics your cardiomegaly and insulin resistance concern is fair, but it does not logically follow that 1-2 IUs is automatically bad for longevity when the clinical data mostly shows better function and risk markers, not worse. @barry3264 So, yes I'll agree with you 20 IUs of hgh is bad! but 1-3 IUs is normal imo.

On the cancer and Laron point you are also overreaching because Laron people are an extreme genetic model with almost 0 IGF1 who are very short, often obese and have roughly normal lifespan for their families, not some abnormal long life as you say.
They mainly prove the pathway matters but not that driving IGF1 that low in normal adults is smart!
imo if you read the literature, and I have, large human datasets actually find an IGF1 curve where both very low and very high levels carry higher mortality and the best survival sits in the middle, which is exactly what careful HGH use tries to hit rather than the extremes you are focused on.

@BeMe @HarleyGuy @s.gentz
@Allupfromhere @Pigsy @Dreamer @Freki @R.AP
@waggat @Yuri @rizzlekdizzle @Grumpy
@toddthelineman

Very interesting!

 

[HarleyGuy]

My blood sugar routinely runs 3.8 to 4.5 while on GH.

Still very good blood sugar even while on GH

 

[Allupfromhere]

The main ones are blood sugar/insulin resistance and cancer risk. Secondary concerns include blood pressure and its downstream effects due to sodium and fluid retention. HGH also hypertrophies all tissues in the body (with some exceptions such as the brain) leading to organomegaly. In the context of bodybuilders, cardiomegaly (enlarged heart) is the most concerning and quite common due to the cocktail of HGH and anabolics, both of which are linked to heart hypertrophy and subsequent heart failure. It is important to know that many of these processes are interlinked and potentiate each other (eg. high blood sugar can worsen hypertension due to higher blood viscosity while hypertension can accelerate the damage to blood vessels done by high blood sugar).

There is a rare form of dwarfism known as Laron dwarfism where patients are born with defective HGH receptors. As a result, they are unable to convert HGH into IGF-1, resulting in their short stature as the anabolic effects of HGH are largely moderated by IGF-1 as you would know. Interestingly, this mutation leads to them having longer life expectancies compared to the general population. Notably, diabetes is essentially non-existent amongst these individuals whilst rates of cancer are very low.

You are lumping in acromegaly and high dose abuse, with low dose GH used for most cycles or TRT, and those are not the same thing at all because in real adults, with conservative dosing, hgh improves lean mass, reduces visceral fat, improves lipids and even heart function instead of causing the organ blow up you are describing, while edema and glucose issues are usually mild and solved by starting very low and pyramiding based on IGF1 and symptoms.
In bodybuilders smashing high growth hormone on top of heavy anabolics your cardiomegaly and insulin resistance concern is fair, but it does not logically follow that 1-2 IUs is automatically bad for longevity when the clinical data mostly shows better function and risk markers, not worse. @barry3264 So, yes I'll agree with you 20 IUs of hgh is bad! but 1-3 IUs is normal imo.

On the cancer and Laron point you are also overreaching because Laron people are an extreme genetic model with almost 0 IGF1 who are very short, often obese and have roughly normal lifespan for their families, not some abnormal long life as you say.
They mainly prove the pathway matters but not that driving IGF1 that low in normal adults is smart!
imo if you read the literature, and I have, large human datasets actually find an IGF1 curve where both very low and very high levels carry higher mortality and the best survival sits in the middle, which is exactly what careful HGH use tries to hit rather than the extremes you are focused on.

@BeMe @HarleyGuy @s.gentz
@Allupfromhere @Pigsy @Dreamer @Freki @R.AP
@waggat @Yuri @rizzlekdizzle @Grumpy
@toddthelineman

Hgh doesnt cause hypertrophy it causes hyperplasia. Division and then multiplication of cells. Pair this with androgens and use abusive amounts of both is what will have the biggest influence on the issues you have described @barry3264.
Not saying there isnt the possibility of issues just saying the pathways and gravity of this happening is much more complex then the regular amounts you see most people use.

 

[barry3264]

You are lumping in acromegaly and high dose abuse, with low dose GH used for most cycles or TRT, and those are not the same thing at all because in real adults, with conservative dosing, hgh improves lean mass, reduces visceral fat, improves lipids and even heart function instead of causing the organ blow up you are describing, while edema and glucose issues are usually mild and solved by starting very low and pyramiding based on IGF1 and symptoms.
In bodybuilders smashing high growth hormone on top of heavy anabolics your cardiomegaly and insulin resistance concern is fair, but it does not logically follow that 1-2 IUs is automatically bad for longevity when the clinical data mostly shows better function and risk markers, not worse. @barry3264 So, yes I'll agree with you 20 IUs of hgh is bad! but 1-3 IUs is normal imo.

On the cancer and Laron point you are also overreaching because Laron people are an extreme genetic model with almost 0 IGF1 who are very short, often obese and have roughly normal lifespan for their families, not some abnormal long life as you say.
They mainly prove the pathway matters but not that driving IGF1 that low in normal adults is smart!
imo if you read the literature, and I have, large human datasets actually find an IGF1 curve where both very low and very high levels carry higher mortality and the best survival sits in the middle, which is exactly what careful HGH use tries to hit rather than the extremes you are focused on.

@BeMe @HarleyGuy @s.gentz
@Allupfromhere @Pigsy @Dreamer @Freki @R.AP
@waggat @Yuri @rizzlekdizzle @Grumpy
@toddthelineman

The Laron example was not provided to state that having 0 IGF-1 is optimal for longevity, but to display that HGH and IGF-1 are implicated in the development of cancers and diabetes; two of the main killers of health in the developed world. I don't disagree with the statement that HGH and IGF-1 in the normal physiological range is likely best for overall health and longevity, but taking even 1-2 IU of HGH daily will spike your IGF-1 levels beyond physiological levels depending on the age bracket. Chronic exposure to IGF-1 pulses beyond what is physiologically normal for that age bracket is still in my opinion bad for overall health and longevity, especially as we age and accumulate more DNA damage and become more prone to developing cancers and insulin resistance even without the addition of HGH.

Laron dwarfism is treated with igf-1 , doesn't that blow your whole reference to it apart?

Stop and think for a moment here mate. They are treated with IGF-1 to bring their levels to within normal physiological ranges. That is completely different to pushing your levels beyond the physiological range which the majority of regular people do by taking even 1IU of HGH. Laron dwarfism was mentioned to show how IGF-1 is implicated in the development of some of the main killers of people's long term health, thus supporting my opinion that pushing your levels beyond what is physiologically normal for your age bracket is not in the best interests of longevity.

 

[LevButlerov]

The Laron example was not provided to state that having 0 IGF-1 is optimal for longevity, but to display that HGH and IGF-1 are implicated in the development of cancers and diabetes; two of the main killers of health in the developed world. I don't disagree with the statement that HGH and IGF-1 in the normal physiological range is likely best for overall health and longevity, but taking even 1-2 IU of HGH daily will spike your IGF-1 levels beyond physiological levels depending on the age bracket. Chronic exposure to IGF-1 pulses beyond what is physiologically normal for that age bracket is still in my opinion bad for overall health and longevity, especially as we age and accumulate more DNA damage and become more prone to developing cancers and insulin resistance even without the addition of HGH.

You’re moving the goalposts a bit here because you already agreed that “normal physiological” IGF1 is best, but then you treat any bump above an age depressed level as automatically harmful when proper low dose GH is literally prescribed to push IGF-1 from low into mid normal, not into acromegaly territory. In normal adults, long term data show better lean mass, less visceral fat, better lipids and often better cardiac function, not the diabetes and cancer timebomb you’re describing, and that’s why endocrinologists still use it in 40-70 year olds. @barry3264

For bodybuilders, you’re pinning cardiomegaly and deaths on GH when the biggest drivers are years of high bodyweight, chronic hypertension, grams of steroids, trashed lipids, sleep apnea and stimulants, with GH mostly layered on top rather than being the single smoking gun.
It’s totally fair to say mega dose GH and heavy gear is a bad longevity play, but saying even 1-2 IU/day that keeps IGF-1 in a high normal range is inherently bad for health and lifespan is not what the actual endocrinology literature or anecdotal data support. I've been doing this for a while and I'm sure of it.

@BeMe @HarleyGuy @vanlife_gymbum @s.gentz
@Allupfromhere @Pigsy @Dreamer @Freki @R.AP
@waggat @Yuri @rizzlekdizzle @Grumpy

 

[HarleyGuy]

The Laron example was not provided to state that having 0 IGF-1 is optimal for longevity, but to display that HGH and IGF-1 are implicated in the development of cancers and diabetes; two of the main killers of health in the developed world. I don't disagree with the statement that HGH and IGF-1 in the normal physiological range is likely best for overall health and longevity, but taking even 1-2 IU of HGH daily will spike your IGF-1 levels beyond physiological levels depending on the age bracket. Chronic exposure to IGF-1 pulses beyond what is physiologically normal for that age bracket is still in my opinion bad for overall health and longevity, especially as we age and accumulate more DNA damage and become more prone to developing cancers and insulin resistance even without the addition of HGH.

Stop and think for a moment here mate. They are treated with IGF-1 to bring their levels to within normal physiological ranges. That is completely different to pushing your levels beyond the physiological range which the majority of regular people do by taking even 1IU of HGH. Laron dwarfism was mentioned to show how IGF-1 is implicated in the development of some of the main killers of people's long term health, thus supporting my opinion that pushing your levels beyond what is physiologically normal for your age bracket is not in the best interests of longevity.

Chronic exposure to IGF-1 pulses beyond what is physiologically normal for that age bracket is still in my opinion bad for overall health and longevity, especially as we age and accumulate more DNA damage and become more prone to developing cancers and insulin resistance even without the addition of HGH.

Arguably true if abused at high doses over long periods of time assuming there's no other riding factor that supersedes overall health and longevity for example being 35+% bodyfat, diet is fast food 3-4x week or eating out of cardboard boxes your whole life, smoking, alcohol, Rx medication like statins, antibiotics that lead to gut health issues which I believe can be the cause of most/many diseases, etc etc. However with bloods in check, and a healthy diet, exercise, lipid panel, BP, and overall healthy bodybuilding lifestyle then 1-2iu spiking IGF-1 into high range and sometimes slightly beyond, no there's no scientific data showing this can cause cancer cells to grow at moderate doses. The HGH/IGF-1 axis can 'invite' cancer cell growth but only in the context of high dose and chronic abuse of high dose HGH and only in the context of that HGH converting to IGF-1 endogenously to a chronically high range.

Your making a good point but you're trying to take studies that look at abusive or excessive dosages and apply that to those that are using 1-2iu HGH in later life or even in a bodybuilding context for IGF1 to be maximized for their own benefit in an otherwise naturally endogenous declining state (without exogenous HGH) where an IGF1 pulse will do more good than harm.

This one might interest you: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31616903/#:~:text=Abstract,Growth hormone; IGF-1.

@BeMe @vanlife_gymbum @s.gentz
@Allupfromhere @Pigsy @Dreamer @Freki @R.AP
@waggat @Yuri @rizzlekdizzle @Grumpy @LevButlerov

 

[LevButlerov]

Arguably true if abused at high doses over long periods of time assuming there's no other riding factor that supersedes overall health and longevity for example being 35+% bodyfat, diet is fast food 3-4x week or eating out of cardboard boxes your whole life, smoking, alcohol, Rx medication like statins, antibiotics that lead to gut health issues which I believe can be the cause of most/many diseases, etc etc. However with bloods in check, and a healthy diet, exercise, lipid panel, BP, and overall healthy bodybuilding lifestyle then 1-2iu spiking IGF-1 into high range and sometimes slightly beyond, no there's no scientific data showing this can cause cancer cells to grow at moderate doses. The HGH/IGF-1 axis can 'invite' cancer cell growth but only in the context of high dose and chronic abuse of high dose HGH and only in the context of that HGH converting to IGF-1 endogenously to a chronically high range.

Your making a good point but you're trying to take studies that look at abusive or excessive dosages and apply that to those that are using 1-2iu HGH in later life or even in a bodybuilding context for IGF1 to be maximized for their own benefit in an otherwise naturally endogenous declining state (without exogenous HGH) where an IGF1 pulse will do more good than harm.

This one might interest you: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31616903/#:~:text=Abstract,Growth hormone; IGF-1.

@BeMe @vanlife_gymbum @s.gentz
@Allupfromhere @Pigsy @Dreamer @Freki @R.AP
@waggat @Yuri @rizzlekdizzle @Grumpy @LevButlerov

I think anything we assume in a vacuum always a question right thats why we debate these things in the open @HarleyGuy

 

[HarleyGuy]

I think anything we assume in a vacuum always a question right thats why we debate these things in the open @HarleyGuy

In the vacuum of space even light bends though

Agreed though, for sure. Open debate is awesome and I will be the first to admit I love the feeling when I'm put in my place and just outright wrong. The feeling of admitting is awesome for some reason I can't explain but I'll try my darndest first though LOL

If you wanna see what's not in a vacuum you can read here: https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/how-much-hgh-do-you-like-on-cycle.108058/#post-1910697

Ain't no arguing this point heh heh. I love math.

 

[barry3264]

You’re moving the goalposts a bit here because you already agreed that “normal physiological” IGF1 is best, but then you treat any bump above an age depressed level as automatically harmful when proper low dose GH is literally prescribed to push IGF-1 from low into mid normal, not into acromegaly territory. In normal adults, long term data show better lean mass, less visceral fat, better lipids and often better cardiac function, not the diabetes and cancer timebomb you’re describing, and that’s why endocrinologists still use it in 40-70 year olds. @barry3264

For bodybuilders, you’re pinning cardiomegaly and deaths on GH when the biggest drivers are years of high bodyweight, chronic hypertension, grams of steroids, trashed lipids, sleep apnea and stimulants, with GH mostly layered on top rather than being the single smoking gun.
It’s totally fair to say mega dose GH and heavy gear is a bad longevity play, but saying even 1-2 IU/day that keeps IGF-1 in a high normal range is inherently bad for health and lifespan is not what the actual endocrinology literature or anecdotal data support. I've been doing this for a while and I'm sure of it.

@BeMe @HarleyGuy @vanlife_gymbum @s.gentz
@Allupfromhere @Pigsy @Dreamer @Freki @R.AP
@waggat @Yuri @rizzlekdizzle @Grumpy

I guess we can agree to disagree. I can see in your sig you are well-educated and qualified in this matter and respect your opinion.

I wouldn't say it is automatically harmful, but in my opinion having the IGF-1 levels of a teenager or higher in your 40s/50s/60s is suboptimal for longevity if everything else was equal. Of course some natty fatass with a shit diet and blood markers is going to be worse off than a disciplined, healthy person who runs a low dose of hgh. I don't know where you live, but in Australia the endocrinology clinical guidelines restrict HGH treatment to cases of deficiency only, and outline that levels should be maintained within age-appropriate ranges (eg. bringing a 45yo's levels up to a teenager's for anti-ageing purposes is considered irresponsible and outside the scope for approved use). The reason why "normal" ranges for IGF-1 are categorised by age is not only to account for the natural decline with age, but because it's the general consensus amongst the medical community that having higher IGF-1 levels in later age carries significant health risks. In fact, many believe that HGH and IGF-1 decline with age is actually a form of autoregulation by the body to mitigate the risk of health complications and promote longevity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe our main point of disagreement is on whether maintaining the IGF-1 levels of your youth into middle and late age through exogenous HGH is better for long term health than letting the body undergo its age-related decline. In the literature I've read and based on what I've learned in my formal education, having IGF-1 levels even in the high end of normal for your age group still carried a greater risk for cancer and all-cause mortality than those in the mid-range. If you have studies that contest this and support your opinion, I'd be happy to read them.

At the end of the day, I would have reservations about an individual in his 40s or older running a low dose of exogenous HGH to restore his levels to mirror or in many cases slightly exceed those of a growing teenager or man in his 20s. In my opinion, and older man's body is not equipped to safely handle the hormonal profile of a teenager and thus carries long-term health risks.

Have you read any long-term (10+year) studies that examine the safety profile low-dose exogenous GH use? If you have, link it so I can have a read of it as well.

Arguably true if abused at high doses over long periods of time assuming there's no other riding factor that supersedes overall health and longevity for example being 35+% bodyfat, diet is fast food 3-4x week or eating out of cardboard boxes your whole life, smoking, alcohol, Rx medication like statins, antibiotics that lead to gut health issues which I believe can be the cause of most/many diseases, etc etc. However with bloods in check, and a healthy diet, exercise, lipid panel, BP, and overall healthy bodybuilding lifestyle then 1-2iu spiking IGF-1 into high range and sometimes slightly beyond, no there's no scientific data showing this can cause cancer cells to grow at moderate doses. The HGH/IGF-1 axis can 'invite' cancer cell growth but only in the context of high dose and chronic abuse of high dose HGH and only in the context of that HGH converting to IGF-1 endogenously to a chronically high range.

Your making a good point but you're trying to take studies that look at abusive or excessive dosages and apply that to those that are using 1-2iu HGH in later life or even in a bodybuilding context for IGF1 to be maximized for their own benefit in an otherwise naturally endogenous declining state (without exogenous HGH) where an IGF1 pulse will do more good than harm.

This one might interest you: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31616903/#:~:text=Abstract,Growth hormone; IGF-1.

@BeMe @vanlife_gymbum @s.gentz
@Allupfromhere @Pigsy @Dreamer @Freki @R.AP
@waggat @Yuri @rizzlekdizzle @Grumpy @LevButlerov

There is literature showing that even having IGF-1 levels in the high-normal range of your age group still carries a higher risk of cancer and all-cause mortality. Growth factor exposure is cumulative (think area under the curve), so even long-term low-dose HGH carries some risk as we age in my opinion.

 

[LevButlerov]

In the vacuum of space even light bends though

Agreed though, for sure. Open debate is awesome and I will be the first to admit I love the feeling when I'm put in my place and just outright wrong. The feeling of admitting is awesome for some reason I can't explain but I'll try my darndest first though LOL

If you wanna see what's not in a vacuum you can read here: https://www.evolutionary.org/forums/threads/how-much-hgh-do-you-like-on-cycle.108058/#post-1910697

Ain't no arguing this point heh heh. I love math.

EVO family starting to be more like high end math place @HarleyGuy

 

[dudemos]

So, basically, you're chasing that fountain of youth, huh? Teriparatide, the bone-building boss! Hope you find a good Aussie source, mate! If @Wolfenstein doesn't have it, it probably doesn't exist!