This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
On post #27 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Why this subcategory is stricter about sourcing than most: the evidence base is weaker and that is precisely why documentation quality matters more. A supplier page that clearly identifies the compound and the purity is more valuable for secretagogues than for incretin agonists where the evidence base is stronger.
Secretagogues and glucose tolerance: there is a mechanistic concern that sustained growth hormone elevation might impair glucose tolerance. The clinical relevance of this concern in practice is not well established.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature is honestly weaker than in the incretin literature. Large randomised controlled trials are rare. Most evidence is mechanistic or from small studies. This is why this subcategory has higher sourcing standards than most.
Tesamorelin has an approved indication in HIV-associated lipodystrophy. That is the only compound in this class with a registration-quality evidence base from a proper trial programme. Generalising from that narrow population to healthy adults is a substantial extrapolation.
GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics are often conflated but they are different mechanisms. GHRH analogues (like CJC-1295) cause the pituitary to release growth hormone. Ghrelin mimetics (like GHRPs) act on the ghrelin receptor directly. The effect on growth hormone secretion is similar but the mechanisms are distinct.
IGF-1 as a surrogate: it is a better integrated measure than a spot growth hormone level and it is still a surrogate, with all the caveats that come with surrogates. Stable or rising IGF-1 is not the same as "this is working" in any health-related sense.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
Pulsatile secretion matters because growth hormone is secreted in pulses, not continuously. A single post-dose growth hormone level is nearly uninterpretable. Assessing this class properly requires serial sampling or an integrated measure like IGF-1, and almost nothing published online does either.
post #40 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
CJC-1295 with and without DAC: the version with a drug affinity complex binds albumin covalently and persists for days. The version without it does not persist. Supplier labelling frequently does not distinguish them clearly, so confirming which you have is important.
Ipamorelin selectivity claims originate in preclinical characterisation and are reasonably well supported for what they claim: less effect on cortisol and prolactin than earlier GHRPs. Whether that translates to something clinically meaningful is a different question from whether the selectivity is real.
Coming back to post #42, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Reading a rodent study on a secretagogue without over-extrapolating: rodent studies can show a mechanism is plausible. They cannot show magnitude of effect in humans or safety profile in humans. That gap is larger for secretagogues than for incretin agonists because the human evidence is thinner.
What a well-designed human trial of a secretagogue would look like: randomised, placebo-controlled, adequate sample size, IGF-1 as primary outcome, muscle and strength as secondary outcomes, adequate follow-up duration. Very few secretagogue trials meet that description.
This follows post #44 rather than contradicting it.
Reading a rodent study on a secretagogue without over-extrapolating: rodent studies can show a mechanism is plausible. They cannot show magnitude of effect in humans or safety profile in humans. That gap is larger for secretagogues than for incretin agonists because the human evidence is thinner.
I read post #46 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
What a well-designed human trial of a secretagogue would look like: randomised, placebo-controlled, adequate sample size, IGF-1 as primary outcome, muscle and strength as secondary outcomes, adequate follow-up duration. Very few secretagogue trials meet that description.
post #48 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Secretagogues and glucose tolerance: there is a mechanistic concern that sustained growth hormone elevation might impair glucose tolerance. The clinical relevance of this concern in practice is not well established.
On post #46 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Why this subcategory is stricter about sourcing than most: the evidence base is weaker and that is precisely why documentation quality matters more. A supplier page that clearly identifies the compound and the purity is more valuable for secretagogues than for incretin agonists where the evidence base is stronger.
Development history is more informative than speculation: ipamorelin was investigated clinically for post-operative ileus and was not taken forward to registration. That it was not brought to market tells you something about the cost-benefit calculation that any amount of forum enthusiasm does not.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Worth separating two things that post #49 runs together.
Ipamorelin selectivity claims originate in preclinical characterisation and are reasonably well supported for what they claim: less effect on cortisol and prolactin than earlier GHRPs. Whether that translates to something clinically meaningful is a different question from whether the selectivity is real.
CJC-1295 with and without DAC: the version with a drug affinity complex binds albumin covalently and persists for days. The version without it does not persist. Supplier labelling frequently does not distinguish them clearly, so confirming which you have is important.
Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature is honestly weaker than in the incretin literature. Large randomised controlled trials are rare. Most evidence is mechanistic or from small studies. This is why this subcategory has higher sourcing standards than most.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
IGF-1 as a surrogate endpoint and its limitations — the long version
On the subject in the title: IGF-1 as a surrogate endpoint and its limitations — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have seen STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a claim I do…
|
+14 | 18 | 53k | 12mo |
|
Revisiting: What a well-designed human trial of a secretagogue would look like
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: What a well-designed human trial of a secretagogue would look like Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023). Please read it…
|
+69 | 74 | 25k | 18mo |
|
Why pulsatile secretion matters for interpreting secretagogue claims — a second dataset
The question in the title: Why pulsatile secretion matters for interpreting secretagogue claims — a second dataset I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I have seen LEADER ( N…
|
+60 | 64 | 25k | 15mo |
|
Ipamorelin selectivity claims and where they came from — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Ipamorelin selectivity claims and where they came from — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021)…
|
2 | 27k | 14mo | |
|
CJC-1295 with and without DAC: what the modification does — what changed since
CJC-1295 with and without DAC: what the modification does — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med , 2024)…
|
4 | 5.1k | 7mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit
Revisiting: Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SURPASS-4 ( Lancet ,…
|
+50 | 55 | 7.8k | 2d |
|
Critiquing an observational claim about a class effect
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Critiquing an observational claim about a class effect Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015). Please read it before…
|
2 | 6.9k | 14mo | |
|
Sample size in a voluntary survey: the selection problem
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Sample size in a voluntary survey: the selection problem Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three…
|
+1 | 5 | 12k | 15mo |
|
Criticising the method without criticising the authors
Criticising the method without criticising the authors Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in support of a claim…
|
+55 | 61 | 60k | 15mo |
|
Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate
Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it before posting; the…
|
2 | 55k | 7mo |