Growth hormone secretagogues, honestly assessed

Started 23 December 2025 · 17 replies · 132 hearts · read 2.2k times

WellsChester, UK · 23 December 2025

7 months ago

Growth hormone secretagogues, honestly assessed — putting it in its own thread so it does not get lost in the check-in.

I have read the paper and I am not sure I have understood it.

Everything discussed in this circle is research-use-only material and is not approved for use in a person, and my question is about the evidence rather than about use.

I have a practical question that turns entirely on a technical detail, and I have not been able to get a straight answer to the technical detail.

I would like to know what the best single piece of human evidence is, because I suspect the honest answer is thinner than the discussion suggests.

Thank you for reading. Careful answers welcome; confident ones I can already get elsewhere.

MableBolton, UK

Nothing here is a recommendation. This circle exists to be honest about where the evidence runs out, not to fill the gap with confidence.

10me too 8

AbramAmsterdam, NL

Gently disagreeing with Mable, or rather adding the other half of it.

The dosing discussion in most places online is derived from animal work by arithmetic, and that arithmetic does not do what people think it does.

IvorLlanelli, UK

What Mable described happened to me too, in a slightly different order.

The honest answer to most questions in this circle is that nobody has run the study that would answer them.

SunilFacilitatorBirmingham, UK

I want to say what this circle owes anybody who decides against, says so, and gives their reasoning: respect, and no argument about it. That is the tone I want here and it is not negotiable.

TamarPlymouth, UK

Well said, and thank you for taking the time over it.

IdrisCardiff, UK

My honest experience is that the more I read here, the more conservative I have become about the whole category.

FabianBasel, CH

Nothing in this circle is medical advice and none of us is in a position to tell you what is safe for you.

TobinCork, IE

Building on what Fabian wrote rather than answering the original question.

What I would flag is that the safety data is the part that is thinnest, and it is the part that matters most.

FlossieShrewsbury, UK

Idris, thank you for that. It gives me somewhere to start from.

Everything discussed here is research-use-only material. That is not a formality: it was never manufactured, released or documented for use in a person.

TacitaRome, IT

#10

What I keep coming back to is that a compound having a plausible mechanism and a compound having human outcome data are very different situations.

PolaGdańsk, PL

#11

I would say be very careful with anything where the entire published record is animal work. That is a starting point, not a finding.

NevGrimsby, UK

#12

Something I have noticed is that the confidence of the discussion is usually inversely proportional to the amount of evidence.

BunnyWeston-super-Mare, UK

#13

Saying it out loud helps other people say it too. Thank you.

WellsChester, UK

#14

Nev, thank you for that. It gives me somewhere to start from.

What helped me was asking, for each compound, what the best single piece of human evidence actually is. Often the answer is very little.

MableBolton, UK

#15

Gently disagreeing with Nev, or rather adding the other half of it.

My position is that I read about these with interest and I do not take them, and I want that to be a legitimate position in this circle.

7me too 7

SunilFacilitatorBirmingham, UK

#16

Stepping in to say that the sourcing reference pages on this site say plainly what can and cannot be verified, and that is narrower than a recommendation on purpose.

IvorLlanelli, UK

#17

The reading group format works well for this. We took one compound, found everything published, and concluded it was thinner than the discussion suggested.