The injection thing was a turnoff. There are a lot of people on this thread who did say important and relevant stuff on here. That didn't seem to be addressed. I don't believe in using GH directly, perhaps herbs that influence it, but still that has a limit. Progesterone, estrogens, IGF-1, prolactin and their herbal mimics are the hormones that act directly. No one here is qualified to advocate injections, so no one can respond in relation to that. It looks like the injection method is hearsay rather than going through the actual research. I've seen a discovery channel episode (whether or not it was fiction based on reality) where a steroid supplier to professional athletes, tested it on himself as his quality control. While it does look stringent, I do not know where he got it from, and their ethical practices (but I could say the same thing about some brick and mortar stores).
The people on this thread pointed out there are more important hormones and mimics for NBE. They've pointed out that GH was discussed on BN. Lotus wrote a lot of information on GH, and Charlie_girl said a lot of insightful things. What's the point of increasing GH without the presence of the phytohormones that affect the receptors in the breasts, or the phytohormones that influence human hormones that do this? My research also shows there are more important hormones than GH. I don't see research that says if GH directly interacts with breasts, so how is that supposed to work on its own. The people who did the research on GH injections didn't even look into this, or they weren't looking into NBE research. It's also a shortcut to bypass what they don't understand.
I understand that GH is a way to restart puberty, but that is uncharted water. And it is a limited result. I think taking an injection would be harder on the liver than ingesting it. Whereas the intestines can clear out more of anything hard on the liver, and gradually introduce the substance to the body. Digestion is why snake venom is deadly if injected, but its not deadly if ingested. This is like why a harmless product fed to a test animal won't kill it, but an injection is more than 4 times more likely to kill it.
Men generally have more muscle gain in their upper body because of their natural testosterone, not because of dedication.
There is no burden to prove your point, but if you want people to believe you, there is burden for you to show us where you got the information or where to find it. Losing track of an important article can sometimes become a needle in a haystack. As for me, my standards are NLM, science news, encyclopedias, professional websites,
The people on this thread pointed out there are more important hormones and mimics for NBE. They've pointed out that GH was discussed on BN. Lotus wrote a lot of information on GH, and Charlie_girl said a lot of insightful things. What's the point of increasing GH without the presence of the phytohormones that affect the receptors in the breasts, or the phytohormones that influence human hormones that do this? My research also shows there are more important hormones than GH. I don't see research that says if GH directly interacts with breasts, so how is that supposed to work on its own. The people who did the research on GH injections didn't even look into this, or they weren't looking into NBE research. It's also a shortcut to bypass what they don't understand.
I understand that GH is a way to restart puberty, but that is uncharted water. And it is a limited result. I think taking an injection would be harder on the liver than ingesting it. Whereas the intestines can clear out more of anything hard on the liver, and gradually introduce the substance to the body. Digestion is why snake venom is deadly if injected, but its not deadly if ingested. This is like why a harmless product fed to a test animal won't kill it, but an injection is more than 4 times more likely to kill it.
Men generally have more muscle gain in their upper body because of their natural testosterone, not because of dedication.
There is no burden to prove your point, but if you want people to believe you, there is burden for you to show us where you got the information or where to find it. Losing track of an important article can sometimes become a needle in a haystack. As for me, my standards are NLM, science news, encyclopedias, professional websites,