JFYI, here is an update from the conversation in the other thread:
sikdogg said:
Opinions really mean nothing regarding this issue... it's about science. A single person attributing his gains from Androjel doesn't prove a darn thing... it's anecdotal evidence at best. I've been to other boards where people (more than one) have claimed Androjel did squat for them. I've also been to otheres where everyone seems to swear by it.
This is exactly my point. That is exactly what I am sure that I said here:
Originally Posted by Alternate
With all due respect, your opinion/your personal analysis that you feel is fact is but one opinion/personal analysis. My experiences has been that there are varying opinions/analysis for atleast 90% of opinions/reported facts/personal analysis.
And, just to clarify my input, this "science" that you mention can also be contradicting/varying from difference sources.
I am glad we agree. Maybe there was only a misunderstanding in semantics.
The fact is, in this thread, there is more than one medical study exerpt that claims gains from IGF and there is a testimonial and endorsement about Androgel for gains. Still, your personal comments are saying that it is a "waste" and or will do little to nothing, essentially.
You also make points about local and systematic effects, which seems almost irrelevent to my idea of what I am meaning to discuss because I don't care whether it is local or systematic as long as the reults are discerned.
If I didn't realize that such carying/contradicting "facts", "science" testimonies and opinions are to be considered in context with all other possible sources/information/testimonials/opinions/"facts" and science" etc, then I woudl have never made a post in this thread.
The fact is that test exerts very little effect on the penis.
Ok. I can see how that makes sense in general. Still:
1) Amount of effect is relative to the individual's perception and circumstance regardless of scientific measure.
2) Do you have any statistics to support this statement of yours?
IMO at this point given the contradicting/varying information, to draw conclusions about this requires nothing but testimonials of experience statistics.
The more people that try it and report their findings the better we will get an idea of results.
People can talk about all the "facts", "science", theories, opinions etc etc that they want. Multiple experimentation with actual records of results in a wide variety of males will be the best statistics to be conclusive about.
I was hoping to get some personal comments from Supra and Rydog, as well as as many other people as possible. They were pareticularly mentioned about experimenting with loac and systematic injection of IGF-1.
More testimony from people's experience with Androgel is what I am interested in too. So far, all I know of is 1 testimonial attributed to a man's large penis growth and your comments saying that you don't think it will do anything or little of anything.
There are countless examples of all kinds of paradigm and revolutionary changes/findings that seemed completely illogical or unlikely rational/conclusive at first. Ex: The world is flat, we will never fly in space, computers will never be needed for everyday use, you can't make your penis or tits grow at all and you are stuck with what you were born with, the magic bullet killed JFK and there was only one shooter etc etc etc.
While this particular case is less significant, the principle of point that there certainly seems to be reason for more experimentation and recorded results to be more conclusive is very rational IMO.
DHT it the primary male hormone that is most androgenic. DHT is the androgen that is responsible for most male traits and that includes the penis.
Ok. So I was right when I said:
Originally Posted by Alternate
I recall, from a small amount of reading that I have done, that DHT is what testosterone becomes after being processed through the body in a specific way and or time frame.
I am also aware that it has an effect on hair, and I imgaine that you are correct that it is responsible for a variety of predominantly male traits.
You say:
The only affect that test may exert is thru its conversion to DHT. Since you are only applying a few milligrasms of test to your penis, i seriously doubt that that was enough to make a difference.
The way you present this, seems to justify a very rational and logical response.
1) If you need to convert the test into DHT for growth, how do you increase efficiency of converting test to DHT and having it effect the penis primarily?
2) You insinuate that "a few milligrams" won't make a difference. However, neither will tugging on your dick for only a few hours or days. It seems to me that volume of application may increase chances. The guy who attributed Androgel to his aparent large size did not seem to say that it happened "over night". He may have been consistantly using it for an extended period of time. Same about any other supplement/hormoone/injection/cream etc. Maybe the volume, frequebncy and cumulative time is absolutely essential to discerning results. Actually, it seems that would be the primarily if not soley rational way to discern.
3) I respect your doubts. Still, I do not think that we should be unequivocally conclusive simply because of your current doubts.
You say:
The page one post of the IGF-1 rat study show promise but if you read it carefully, you would see that they were injecting igf-1 into rats of differing age groups and the rats that showed the most changes were the youngest ones.
I did see that, before I posted. It didn't change my rationale for posting as I have.
Add to that the fact that the changes that the young rats showed was not earth shattering. It was a positive marked increase, but not that big.
Growth is growth. I agree, value of growth is something to take into considerations. I also know that satisfaction of growth is relative to the individual's perception and circumstances. Some people want evey cm and mm they can get. Also, think about people who are plateauing a few mm/cm short of their idea size.
Lastly, rats are rats and humans are humans. There may be different effects in humans for various reasons that I can fathom but do not currently understand in full.
One could speculate that the changes could simply be a result of natural growth as young rats would definitely have higher levels of GH and igf-1 to facilitate natural growth as it is in humans.
I agree and I did speculate the same. Still, that is mere speculation and it did not change my rationale of posting as I have. And, still, all the rats made some gains.
Furthermore, the rats made gains in these same "cavernous smooth muscle cells" that we have in our penis.
Also of note is that in the rat study, IGF-1 was not injected into the rat's penis.
I did not see any notation of where the rats were injected, actually. However, assuming that a rat penis is very small I would not suspect that it would be considered a good injection point. Obviously this is relative to your dicussion abot local and systematic effects. So, I will simply reiterate that I do not really care about whether it is local and or systematic as long as the results are made. Also, assuming that the rats were not injected at the penis, there is then a potential for discussion/argument that the experiment necessary to judge potential differing results from local vs systematic was not made. But, again, I don't really care much about this at all.
Finally, you could also argue that a rat is a rat and a human is a human so just because these results were as so with rats does not mean that they will be exactly the same with humans.
Do I expect a rat to look like Arnold if I get him a weight resistance wheel to run on and some steroids? No.
This is a joke to make a point. I understand that you can comparatively judge ratios of difference/experimentation reults etc.
JFYI, this rat study was not the only medical exerpt that I was talking about. Granted, it may be the only one on page 1.
In response to this:
Post by negative on 3-01-05: Is there any studies with IGF-1 prove that your penis getting bigger with it.?
you posted another experpt which states:
There are a few but i'm too lazy to dig them up right now but here's one...
Quote:
Insulin-like growth factor 1, but not growth hormone, has in vitro proliferative effects on neonatal foreskin fibroblasts without affecting 5-alpha-reductase or androgen receptor activity.
Dykstra KD, Payne AM, Abdelrahim M, Francis GL.
Department of Pediatrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
Clinical observation of patients with congenital growth hormone (GH) deficiency and Laron-type dwarfism suggests that factors such as GH or insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) might in addition to androgens, be needed for normal phallic growth. We speculated GH or IGF-1 might have direct actions on genital tissues and performed the present study to evaluate the in vitro effects of GH and IGF-1 on cultured neonatal foreskin fibroblasts. ....
BLAH BLAH ....
This insinuates that you know of several studies that you have read which suggest that IGF-1 is increasing penis size whether naturally and or supplementary. The medical exerpt substantiates it.
You say:
Supra (a
MOS member) has injected IGF-1 in his penis and if i recall, he didn't experience any significant growth.
Ok. Interesting. These personal testimonials are what I am interested in for IGF, HGH, Androgel and anything else like this stuff that may cause excellerated growth.
I didn't see him make any posts in this thread or elsewhere about his experiences. I'd be interested in his comments. I have not yet searched. Maybe I will search more later, maybe you could post some of his comments that you know of from elsewhere or maybe he could post in this thread.
You say:
Alot of bobybuilders inject IGF-1 into worked muscles (for example if the pecs were worked then it was injected in the pecs) in the hopes of localized growth but the fact is that other bodybuilders experience the same level of gains from injecting subcutaneously or into the same muscle for all injections. This shows that there really isn't alot of localized effect happening.
Ok. The discussion about local vs systematic again. To reiterate:
I do not really care about whether it is local and or systematic as long as the results are made.
You say:
I have tried IGH-1 but not on my penis. I have used it sub-q and IM with the same effects, leaner body and much more vascularization. I also have alot of experience in the use of anabolic steriods and have injected various flavors of test, deca, tren, and boldenone. I have also done transdermal applications of steroids and prohormones so i think i know a hell of alot more about how androjel works than you would.
Ok. Thank you very much for you imput form experience and your personal research. However, there is no need for you to make such statements as " i think i know a hell of alot more about how androjel works than you would". Maybe some of those drugs are influencing aggression and perception because I never meant to insinuate, have claimed or have thought that I was insulting your intelligence and or comparing/competeing with you in regards to "who knows more than the other". This is a friendly conversation for educational purposes. I thank you for your participation, sincerely. Please make sure to not take offense and or be antagonistic and aggrressive. I am analytical and I am simply learning and thinking for myself. That is why I am posting and asking questions. I am here to interact, learn, be friendly, contribute in my personal way. That is it. No need for any antagonism and or aggression towards me. I am here to discuss more than to argue (if you want to argue/discuss semantics, lol
).
I am ver familiar with how steroids exert their effects on the body and i know for a fact that they all work systemically. If i'm injecting 750-1,000 miligrams of test into my delts every week or rubbing 750miligrams of test to my chest and legs 2-3 times a day without any bodypart exploding into enormous proportions, i really doubt that a few miligrams rubbed on my penis will do squat.
Ok. I respect your input and realize that this is part of your rationale for your comments thus far. Still, if this is soley about the differences in local vs systematic the I reiterate:
I do not really care about whether it is local and or systematic as long as the results are made.
In response to your comment:
bodybuilders would have overly large shoulders and asses since that is where they inject test and other steroids.
I responded:
The example about body builders in comparison is flawed and vague at this point, IMO. There are certainly a lot of variables to consider, as I would give you benefit of the doubt to know or atleast fathom. It is my understanding that there is quite a large selection of different steroids/supplements and even variants of one specific steroid/supplement. Then you have the immense differences in people's own body and then you have differences in appplication(where, when, frequency, quanitity, quality etc etc etc) /workout/diet etc.
and you responded:
The comparison is not flawed nor is it vague. Bodybuilders have been using transdermal applications of test and other hormones/prohormones for some time now and in all cases, the effects were systemic not localized.
1) In retrospect, it now seems to me that your primary point was to discuss local vs systematic effects. However, I don't believe that I was thinking of it like that at the time. I believe I was thinking of results only regardless of whether they were from local and or systematic application.
If I had realized that you point was primarily to discuss effects of local vs systematic then I would have simply stated:
I do not really care about whether it is local and or systematic as long as the results are made.
2) In your first comment, you only mentioned injections and you did not menion transdermal application like Androgel (as you did mention in your second comment). I read the testimony of a man apparently attributing large penis gains to Androgel via application to the arms and to the penis. There was an insinuation that application directly to the penis was making a difference by the comment
He was given
>>Androgel (RX only) and was intrigued by the instructions ... they
>>indicated to NOT put it on the penis. He asked the doctor why and he
>>casually remarked ... "maybe they are afraid of enlarging it". So he
>>"broke the rules" and started using it every other day on the penis and
>>every other day on the arms or abs ... within two months he had gained an
>>inch (both erect and limp)
. Assuming that this is a legitimate testimonial then one may conclude that the affects were from local and or systematic, with special attention to the possibility of local effects since the growth was so substantial, with no other mentioned influence of something like Penis Enlargement and or
extender etc in that one area in a short period of time.
Furthermore, we know that the penis is not a muscle but an area with "cavernous smooth muscle cells". Maybe there is a distinct difference in local and or systematic application in areas of the body with "cavernous smooth muscle cells" in contrast to areas of large muscle like the "shoulders and asses " as you mentioned for comparative discussion.
The fact is that they are two completely different cells. Muscle vs "cavernous smooth muscle cells". So, one may suspect that effects could certainly be different.
When you combine this with the factual variables of
quite a large selection of different steroids/supplements and even variants of one specific steroid/supplement. Then you have the immense differences in people's own body and then you have differences in appplication(where, when, frequency, quanitity, quality etc etc etc) /workout/diet etc.
that I mentioned then maybe you can understand why I said that the comparison is vague and flawed in my opinion. I can see some relevance, but it does not completely satisfy my current rationale aforementioned.
Again:
This is a friendly conversation for educational purposes. I thank you for your participation, sincerely. Please make sure to not take offense and or be antagonistic and aggrressive. I am analytical and I am simply learning and thinking for myself. That is why I am posting and asking questions. I am here to interact, learn, be friendly, contribute in my personal way. That is it. No need for any antagonism and or aggression towards me. I am here to discuss more than to argue (if you want to argue/discuss semantics, lol
).
Thanks!
